tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43823544551417474262024-03-05T14:31:01.412-07:00Lettuce Brain - Cranial Workouts for ThinkersPolitics, philosophy, theoretical physics, logic puzzles! If it gives you brain-aches it's fair game. So scoop your fried brainjuice into a bucket and start thinking!Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-48494226450613581932023-02-15T14:16:00.000-07:002023-02-15T14:16:28.704-07:00Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?<p> <span style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">Sola Scriptura</span></p><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">The principle of Sola Scriptura is that only the commandments of God are infallible and authoritative. Deuteronomy 13 illustrates this; If anyone leads people astray from the True God, that person is to be removed. Galatians 1:6-10 says if anyone teaches a different gospel that person is accursed. </div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">Scripture is authoritative. In 1 Timothy 4:13 Timothy was instructed to publicly read Scripture, because Scripture is from God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Jesus instructed to listen to Scripture read by the Scribes and Pharisees from the seat of Moses, but not to follow what they added to it (Matthew 23:1-36). Jesus held people to Scripture (Matthew 22:29-32) but rebuked adding tradition to it (Mark 7:1-13 & Matthew 15:1-9). Timothy was instructed to follow what Paul had taught him (2 Timothy 1:8-14) because it was Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-17 & 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Jesus used Scripture to rebuke Satan (Matthew 4:1-11).</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"> 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 says to hold to what the apostles taught, but 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 warns about listening to things pretending to be apostolic. 1 Corinthians 4:6 commands not to go beyond what is written. Colossians 2:1-8 warns against listening to traditions of men.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">Sola Scriptura is shown and praised in Acts 17:10-12. Acts 17:2 and Acts 18:28 shows that religious arguments should be from the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and Revelation 21:18-19 command not to add to or take away from what God has said. Proverbs 30:5-6 (ESV) "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(69, 69, 69); color: #454545; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve did not follow Sola Scriptura, and the Fall resulted. Yes, Sola Scriptura is Biblical!</div>Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-37394687866910470472015-03-14T09:26:00.000-06:002015-08-24T09:27:11.460-06:00Pi<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">3.1415926</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Pi</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">3/14/15 9:26</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Pi day that happens once every hundred years. (unless you are using the Japanese calendar, when it happens more often)</span><br />
<br style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Pi is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed as </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">a decimal number, nor can it be expressed as a fraction. Pi is the </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">ratio of a circle's diameter and circumference. It is an important and </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">significant number for many calculations, yet it cannot be calculated </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">fully. The circle is one of the basic and important geometric shapes, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">and is used in many ways. The circle is the most efficient use of </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">border for internal area, and the closer something gets to a circle, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">the more internal area it has for the same border distance. Pi is how</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">many times longer the circumference of a circle is than the diameter, </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">and Pi is used to calculate the area of a circle, as well as the volume of a cylinder, sphere, or cone, which are common shapes used in our world, such as with plumbing. Pi can be visualised </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">with physical things, yet can only be approximated for calculations.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Because the decimal numbers of Pi go on forever without a repeating </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">pattern, it is impossible to ever express Pi numerically, so the </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">number is rounded off to an approximation.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">3.</span><wbr style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></wbr><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">141592653589793238462643383279</span><wbr style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></wbr><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">5028841971</span><br />
<br style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Therefore, Pi day is March (3) 14th, 2015 (15), 9:26, Saturday (S, or </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">5), to form the numbers 3.14159265</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">(Saturday can also be abbreviated as Sa, which can also be represented </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">as 54 [because 5 looks like S and 4 looks like a], and Pi rounded off </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">to 9 decimal places is 3.141592654)</span><br />
<br style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Happy Pi Day!</span><br />
<br style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Further reading:</span><br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPi_Day&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHODypBFdWSOev9DxZvmpY8XmJhSQ" style="color: #0000cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr></wbr>Pi_Day</a>Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-6295972129859182872015-03-03T14:58:00.000-07:002015-03-03T15:00:42.137-07:00Fire, Ice, and Feuds: an examination of the Medieval Icelandic legal systemEarly Medieval Icelandic society was an interesting form of republic. It was not a kingdom and was more of a big village than a nation. Disputes were common, and Iceland had a legal system effectively structured for conflict resolution in the culture and society of its time.<br />
<br />
In many respects Iceland can be seen as an extension of mainland Scandinavian society, and should be considered in a way as part of Scandinavia, even if it was only culturally and not geographically attached. (It is superior to use the term Scandinavian than the term Viking, for viking is a verb, and more properly describes an occupation than a people; although many people did choose to be vikings full-time, it was usually a seasonal activity.) Although part of Scandinavia sociologically, Iceland possessed independence and some variations, similar to the independence and variations among the three western Baltic nations. Finland was distinct from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, being a different culture with an ethnic and linguistical heritage that was eastern and non-Germanic. Iceland, although more distant from Scandinavia than Finland, was more Scandinavian than Finland. As a part of Scandinavia culturally, Iceland must be understood with an examination of the mainland.<br />
<br />
Much like Scandinavia, Iceland is a cold, harsh climate. People needed each other to live. Survival was difficult, but the Icelanders were hardy people who came mostly from Norway, another harsh and frigid climate, with a selection from Sweden, Denmark and the British Isles. The survival techniques usable in Iceland would have been known from experience in Norway, Sweden, and the Faeroes Islands. The people of Iceland were quite familiar with sea travel, cold weather survival, and land travel in harsh northerly areas. Roads were rare in Early Medieval Scandinavia. Mainland Europe had old Roman roads, but they did not go very far north and were mainly around the Mediterranean and the Island of Britain. The only significant road in the Baltic area was the Army Road in Denmark. Towns were also scarce in Scandinavia; often the towns were seasonal trading villages set up temporarily and then abandoned for the winter. At the time of Icelandic settlement, Europe had recently been comprised of semi-nomadic tribes, which lead to a mentality of localisation; this, combined with the difficulty of winter travel, created an environment in which strong control of larger regions was impractical.<br />
<br />
The society and mentality of Scandinavia at the time of Icelandic settlement was centred around the family and farm, not the greater community, reminiscent of the settlement era American plantations. The travelling mentality of the Migration Era still lingered and the economy of pillaging was very much alive. Norway and Denmark raided each other prolifically, and also raided the west of Europe. Denmark tended to pillage the mainland and Norway piratouslly visited the British Isles, both sharing the English Channel, creating an expansion trend with the places attended corresponding relevant to the land's placement cartographically; this is not a hard set rule of behaviour, but a tendency reflecting the relative geographic locations of the lands being raided and the host territories launching the wealth-collecting expeditions. Trading and pillaging were both common, and peaceful expeditions were also quite present within the same geographic locations, traders being vastly more welcome to over-winter than the pillagers, although both occupations often made themselves guests of the land during the colder months. Continuing the geographic collation trend of Norway and Denmark, Sweden went east. The distance that must be travelled and the political stability of the East made viking expeditions too expensive and pessimistic to be practical, causing peaceful ventures to be the norm. These peaceful eastern ventures from Sweden often took the form of trading, but not always. Travelling abroad to live and work temporarily was a common practice of Scandinavians. Many served as huscarles in England or obtained military contracts with the local officials in the British Isles (the same occupational activity was also performed in Scandinavia when the ambitious for employment were not ambitious for travel). Swedes, often called Varangians in the East, would spend months or years serving as warriors in the lands they travelled to. Constantinople, called Mikligarth by the Scandinavians, was the capital of the Byzantine Empire and also a choice environment for Swedish warriors, although Swedes were not the only Scandinavians to travel east or serve in the Byzantine army, and the regions farther north were utilised by Scandinavians for trade and employment, particularly the region of Russia around Kiev. The Byzantine emperors hired the aforementioned and used them as mercenaries and as Palace Guards. The emperors elite bodyguard, called the Varangian Guard, was composed mostly of Swedes but other Scandinavians were involved from time to time, and was even given the right of plundering the palace after an emperor died according to one Saga. After fleeing Norway, Harald Sigurdsson (later Harald Hardradi, king of Norway) spent much of his life in a successful military career in Byzantium before returning to claim his kingdom in western Scandinavia. The Scandinavian lands required expansion as a result of demographic pressure, and each of the three nations needed places to emigrate to. Sweden had Eastern Europe, Denmark had Western Europe with Normandy and the eastern side of the British Isles with the Danelaw, and Norway had the western side of the British Isles with the Orkneys and the North Atlantic with Iceland.<br />
<br />
The origins of Icelandic people influenced the development of Icelandic legal and social formation. Iceland was discovered by Irish monks who were seeking hermithood, but their numbers were small. The actual settlement of Iceland began around 870 and the major influx of residents continued until around 930; most of the settlers came from Norway and the Scottish Isles. It has been said that the reasons for emigration came from the activities of King Harald Hárfagri of Norway, but scholars speculate this assertion to be dubious; one reason for the doubt is the missynchronisation of dates. A Scandinavian was blown off course around 860 and the adventurous northerly peoples, always interested in new lands, attempted settlement in the 860s but did not succeed in permanent settlement until Floki Vigerdarsson's expedition in 870 or 874 (there is disagreement among sources). Harald Hárfagri did not become a king in Norway until c.880, and his ambition to unify all of Norway under his crown did not succeed until his victory in the Battle of Hafrsfjord, which is difficult to place on a timeline but is most likely to fall somewhere in the area of 885-890. Harald's activities that would drive people into the North Atlantic (including changing laws, being harsh to his opposers, invading the Scottish Isles, and removing landowner rights) occurred after Hafrsfjord, and so therefore it is chronologically inconsistent for the settlement of Iceland to have been driven by the regal Norwegian. The majority of Icelanders were of Western Scandinavian descent, but settlement reasons were probably no different from the reasons for general Scandinavian expansion at that time, with people seeking new land for personal reasons or because of crowding at home, and the mentality of migration still lingered from earlier times. Although Iceland was a separate country, it maintained many adaptations of the mainland systems and connexions therewith.<br />
<br />
Scandinavian society was primarily organised locally, with free-men valuing their individuality as hereditary landowners (not to be confused with modern individuality, which is the ideology of charting one's own course and being different from others; Medieval Scandinavian individuality was the ideology of local rule and family freedom from royal management). The Scandinavian lands, as well as the British Isles and Mainland Europe, were divided into tribal lands and local kingdoms; the Early Medieval Era saw many unification efforts in all the European areas, but their effects were fleeting and success fluctuational. Unification of what would eventually be the countries of today did eventually happen, and the groundwork had been laid by the late medieval period, but the spirit of localisation was influential in the mentality of the lower classes for many years. This is evident in the way that Scandinavian legal affairs were handled. Most cases were handled at local things (assemblies of freemen), and district things handled cases that the local things were incapable of resolving satisfactorily. Districts desired local independence from regal micro-management, and would not always honour the ordinances of the royal court; indeed in some times there were legal stipulations for district counsels to be capable of denying the king's new laws admittance into local legislative tradition. Laws varied from area to area, and lands were divided and sub-divided into jurisdictions and regions. The land of Norway was divided into four districts, with each region subdivided into local communities. The majority of Icelandic law was borrowed from the Western Norwegian district, which is not surprising considering the geographic translation behaviour of Scandinavians (those in the west of Scandinavia travelling west, those south going south, and so on, a trend of radial expansion correlating geographically). The difference between Icelandic legal structure and mainland Scandinavian legal structure is that Scandinavia had kings and Iceland did not, but, in the stead of a king, the Icelandic Commonwealth (c.930-1271) invented a new presidential office, that of the Lawspeaker; the lawspeaker did not have the power of a king but had the duty of presiding over the Althing (the annual assembly of the Icelandic Commonwealth) and possessed the chair in the legislative assembly. He was elected to a three-year term and had the duty of reciting one third of the law from memory each year (Icelandic law was codified in 1117-1118, before which it was recorded mentally and transmitted orally).<br />
<br />
The organisation of Scandinavian society was based in the medieval style of local and personal allegiance rather than the modern style of nationalism. There were no police or standing armies. Fighting forces were raised when needed, and powerful people maintained personal retinues of warriors as a "hearth guard", but this private foce was a small household security comradeship and not an army. Friendship and kinship were the binding factors for building military forces, and armies were amassed for purposes and not for the sake of possessing a national military. Regional defence forces were sometimes maintained in coastal areas to prevent the district from falling victim to the favoured economic pastime of pillaging, but the soldiers were typically fighting farmers and rarely full-time professional warriors. The captains of military units came from the nobility, but the bulk of Medieval armies were drawn from the peasants who were commoners and not soldiers, spending most of their time farming, and fighting for their lords only in a very small portion of the year. Laws were for order and used as social governors, but enforcement was the task of the litigant and not the state. Support from chieftains and powerful individuals was essential for litigation and retribution. The legal system was based on compensating the victim and not punishing the crime. This system was made possible by the economy of Early Medieval Europe.<br />
<br />
The Early Medieval Scandinavian economic system used silver as the standard monetary unit, but cloth, cattle, and gold were also valued and used as trade commodities. The Scandinavian term for "wealth" is most accurately translated as "cattle", which displays the concept that wealth is more than money. Wealth is power for flourishing. Wealth is not simply tradable value, but includes provision for survival and continuation: the difference between "an income" and "a living". The economy was a gift-economy involving barter and trade. Honour was a commodity that ran the society and economy. Gifts were given, honouring the individuals and families involved, and therefore bartering for support and friendship. Simple economic transactions were done by trading, but the real power was gained by trading gifts for loyalty. The poem "Beowulf" applauds the value of a generous king, and abrades stinginess. The gift economy is lubricated by prestige and fuelled by honour. It is because of this social system of honour that compensation as crime punishment was possible. The crime being punished effectively punished the criminal by hurting pride, but the criminal's honour was not harmed because, when punishment was carried out legally through the system, the honour of all was satisfied. This being understood, it is important to also understand that punishment was not the primary goal of criminal litigation. The primary goal was compensation, compensating the victim to satisfy the honour of those harmed and undo the injury caused by the crime. The crime was considered an offence against the individuals and family harmed, not against society in general as modern thought imagines. The concept of justice was a practical repair of damaged wealth and honour, not an ethereal ideology of righteousness. Honour was the most important issue in law and culture.<br />
<br />
Silver was valued in Scandinavian society, and was the most prolifically preferred medium of exchange (there are instances in which livestock or cloth were the preferred, but silver was preferred in more places over longer periods of time more often, and often the values of the others were put in terms of their silver equivalent). Many fines were imposed in silver, although were not always paid with the metal specifically but rather the metal was used as a standard of value. Silver being the more common and preferred monetary unit has lead some to mistakenly postulate that silver was more valued than gold, which is preposterous; silver was a standard but not the most valuable substance. Silver from England was greatly valued because the English had a system of minting pennies that had a consistently pure content, and so could be trusted and were valued highly everywhere. Arabic silver coins were also highly valued and usually came from Afghanistan. Gold was more valued, and has always been more rare and valued in all societies in all times. There are times and places where something was valued more than gold (desert people fight over water, but still use gold and silver as their money, valuing gold higher than silver, and some rare times, such as in Egypt, when iron was newly discovered, gold was second to the new, rare and highly prized iron because of its unique strength), but gold was always valued higher than silver. For the Scandinavians, silver was the favourite, but that does not mean that it was the most prized. Codified Icelandic law gives legal fines and requirements, usually denoted in silver, one of the standard monetary systems, but also gives exchange rates which fluctuated across times and regions; these exchange rates include the ratio of gold and silver values, in the which case gold is always more valued than silver, usually in an eight to one comparison. Iceland has a better record of codified law and legal activities, and has the literary tradition of the sagas which gives us an understanding of their society, and other Scandinavian countries are mentioned in the Icelandic sagas, but do not receive as large a space in the historical records as domestic Iceland. Iceland is, therefore, better documented for our study, but mainland Scandinavian culture is not going to be so radically different from the rest of the world, and especially from Iceland, which was comprised of people primarily from Norway and was a spin-off of mainland Scandinavian culture and society, as to have a reversal of precious metal values. Historical accounts and legal records describe transactions and settlements in which gold is valued higher than silver. Artefacts from the time show that silver was more common, and gold was less common; this shows that gold was more rare and so should be more valued. If the manner in which the precious metals are used in the artefacts is examined, it becomes apparent that gold was more greatly prised. Often when gold is used to decorate an item, it is not solid gold but rather gold plated bronze because gold was so expensive; gold usually decorates smaller portions of an item than silver, and this ratio changes with the wealth of the item's owner, with some high-class and regal items being solid gold. Gold is displayed in more prestigious locations on artefacts, composes or decorates more prestigious items, and is found belonging to the higher ranks of society. The archaeological evidence suggests that gold was the favoured metal, even though silver was the more common. Silver was the favoured metal for exchange, but gold was more prestigious and more valuable.<br />
<br />
The value of gold is further illustrated by an historical account. In Laxdæla Saga, chapter 26, the story of an inheritance allotment is found. This record describes an event in which the father of two sons also has a third, illegitimate son (an illegitimate son is a son born out of the primary marriage, and was called a bastard, meaning of impure linage or mixed blood, and was usually the result of polygamy; the Medieval Scandinavians were not a Christian society until later, and even then the transition took time, and the pagan roots caused different views on marriage than commonly held in civilized society today). In Iceland at that time, there was a law that forbade arfskot, or the cheating of heirs; the father was the head of the family in which the sons were members, and their birthrights could not be annulled by the father, for he was a caretaker of the family's dynastic wealth rather than the sole owner. Each legitimate son had a right to a portion of the family estate, and so in this case each son could claim one half of the wealth. Icelandic law also stipulated that an illegitimate son could be given up to 12 ounces without permission of the legitimate sons; the legal standard was in silver ounces as the unit of value. In the aforedescribed historical account, the father asked his sons if the illegitimate son could inherit equally with them; one son approved but the other refused, and so the father could not give the illegitimate son more than legally allowed. The interesting turn in this tale is that the father consequently asked the son who disapproved of sharing his inheritance with the bastard if he would permit the giving of twelve ounces to the third man, but failed to specify that it was ounces of silver. The son consented, and the father gave the illegitimate son a gold bracelet weighing eight ounces and a sword worth four ounces of gold; the value of the gift totalled twelve ounces of gold. The son who objected to the bastard's inheritance was greatly displeased, for the father had given gold instead of silver, and gold was worth eight times as much as silver, but he had given permission for the bequeathal of twelve ounces and so could not contest the result of the transaction. This event occurred in the latter half of the tenth century. The saga was written by an unknown author in the middle of the thirteenth century. The events described above clearly indicate that, although silver was the standard, gold was the more valued.<br />
<br />
The Icelandic political organisation was a form of feudalistic republic, based on the gift economy. Feudalism originally was not a form of slavery and oppression (as understood by people of today, mostly influenced by France and very late Medieval and Renaissance times as viewed through the chronological bias lens of later eras trying to make their own time look better by changing the image of earlier years, a form of propaganda generated by Enlightenment persons) but was a system designed to protect people by forming a syndicate; the peasants were given land and protection from the lord, and the lord was given labour and military service from the peasants. The term "lord" comes from "hlāfweard" meaning "loaf-ward", or the keeper of the bread; the meaning of "lord" displays the concept of provision and generosity being the defining attributes and honour of rulers. This feudal system provided for the vital needs of the people and supplied protection, and protection was an important concern in a violent age with many marauding tribes pillaging and plundering and exacting treasures from their neighbours. Feudalism originated from freemen voluntarily becoming peasants under more powerful local chieftains (voluntary is a loose term, for circumstances and the land possessions of the chieftains, coupled with the political instability and violent hazards, gave them no other option). This feudal system continued in Iceland, but with a different form. The lords, called chieftains, did not function under kings and their "serfs", called thingmen, were free to transfer their allegiance to other chieftains at their free choice. The chieftains gained their power from the thingmen whom they could call upon for aid, and the thingmen had support from the chieftains. Both forms of feudalism were systems of mutual aid and support, helping everyone in the agreement, a co-operative union functioning off the principle of strength in numbers. These forms of feudalism were based on giving, an exchange of gifts of land, service, support, assistance, loyalty, and trade commodities, with honour binding it all together, a blend of honour and practicality for survival in a dangerous age.<br />
<br />
In the beginning, Iceland had 36 chieftains (called Gođar, they originally held the office of a priest as well and served as both religious and civil leaders), more were added to make the total 39 in 965 and 48 in 1005. Iceland was divided into quarters, reminiscent of Norway's division into four districts. Each quarter had thing assemblies for it, and there was an annual assembly, called the Althing, for all of Iceland established in 930. The government of Iceland was not centralised, but was ruled locally by the leadership of chieftains, who were political and not geographical leaders. Rule was done by the people, mostly influential, honourable, and prominent aristocrats, but those leaders required support from the freemen to hold their position, and their position was only that of respected leaders. The government was an organised leadership and not a system of rulers, and people's prestige and military might based on supporters is what enforced legal requirements, and settlements were reached by agreement without imposed laws, with laws being established by agreement among leaders. The leaders established laws, and these laws governed Icelandic legal society, but people could choose to be unlawful at will, but so choosing would result in shame and outlawry, which meant no protection from anyone but the closest of friends (who often tried to keep their assistance of the legal outcast to a minimum and typically it only went so far as to facilitate escape into exile) and resulted in either self-imposed banishment or death (sometimes both, as enraged vengeance-seeking people tracked down enemies in foreign lands and even killed them in public). Laws guided honour rather than forcing compliance, for crimes were defined as offenses against persons rather than violations of edicts, and honour was the life force of society. Chieftains would support their thingmen, but only if they abided legally (submitting to the legal system, not necessarily doing everything right in the first place). An individual without the support of a chieftain was on his own and consequently helpless.<br />
<br />
The legal system of Iceland was designed to encourage peace, peace being a term that must be understood relative to the days in which Early Medieval Icelanders lived, being fraught with conflict and violence in the midst of a culture that honoured valour in combat. Icelandic leaders desired to avoid large destructive feuds. Civil war was dangerous and would tear the land apart, destroying the society and dropping the population to levels below the minimum natural requirement for a settlement to survive in North Atlantic climates. Sagas describe countless events of simple transactions, conversations, sports, games, feasts, and daily activities igniting brawls. Many times, violence was the answer. People travelled armed, and Havamal, the Viking poem of wisdom, instructs to always have a spear nearby. Peace was not freedom from danger, but an avoidance of excessive lethal combat.<br />
<br />
Iceland was divided into districts (all of Iceland was also divided into quarters around 965), thing assemblies were gatherings of regions, and they were paramount aspects of society. Although legislative assemblies, they were more than legal. Things were places of social and economic meetings, providing a substrate for culture; news was exchanged, games were played, friendship and kinship ties were formed and sometimes broken , and conflicts were resolved, born, or furthered. All thingmen were required to attend their springtime district thing, but the things were organised and maintained by the chieftains, and the districts were divided by the areas closest to the chieftains with thingmen attending the assemblies of their chosen chieftains. It was at these assemblies that most courts were held. Autumn things were not as important and were not legally required nor did they facilitate courts. After the Althing was established, the trials that could not be satisfactorily resolved in springtime things were referred to the Althing, where chieftains gathered but thingmen were not legally required to attend. Most legal proceedings occurred in the district things, displaying the early medieval preference for localised organisation. <br />
<br />
Some courts were held at locations where they were needed. Eyrbyggja Saga describes a door court that was held to accuse someone of theft and procure the required search warrant. The court was convened on the spot, with six men appointed as a jury (less than required for more serious legal action) but the court was interrupted by an attack from the farm to be searched, and a battle and a feud began. The practice of courts being held outside of things was an early legal behaviour that fell out of usage, and is not described in codified Icelandic law. Its existence is present in saga evidence, but sparse. Things were better suited for litigation than the scene of conflict, for unwatched land containing naught but argument and lacking third party mediation is a breeding ground for feuds.<br />
<br />
Courts were held in the open air, and, except for the early tradition of on-site courts mentioned above, a tradition to quickly exit the realm of the acceptable, were held at designated things. The trial was to be held at the thing geographically closest to the crime, but after some legal reforms in the 960s a dissatisfied litigant could arrange a redo at the Althing, and courts were established for this purpose, with quarter courts dedicated to the four divisions of Iceland. Cases that were not satisfactorily dealt with locally were transferred to the quarter courts, and suits could be taken directly to the quarter court initially without holding trial in a local tribunal if the implications of the dispute were significant and serious enough to warrant such action. Later a fifth court was created in c.1005 for cases that were deadlocked or otherwise impeded from continuing in the quarter courts. Both parties in a lawsuit must be satisfied by the court's decision or the settlement would not be upheld. If an agreement could not be reached, or if there were legal issues, such as technicalities, preventing the case from progressing, the court could become deadlocked and unable to proceed without moving to a higher court or the regrettable but common acts of violence that shook things up and changed the aspects and ingredients of the dispute. The courts were to settle and avoid violent feuds, not cause or exacerbate them.<br />
<br />
Chieftains were responsible for managing and maintaining things and the courts therein. Chieftains did not serve as judges, but appointed judges from among respected freemen. This enabled chieftains to participate in the legal system without special interest problems, and so they could bring lawsuits to court on behalf of themselves or their thingmen. Jury members were appointed by the person bringing the case to be tried and were selected based upon legal status and proximity to the crime. A jury member must be a legally free adult man, landed (owning enough land or cattle to qualify as a householder and not a dependant) and of sufficient age (at least twelve years old), and not related to the plaintiff. Jury members must also be the eligible persons closest to the scene, and if there was someone who would be better appointed to the jury than a jury member, the jury member could be removed from the case. The number of jury members varied depending on current law, sometimes being nine and sometimes twelve. There were thirty-six judges in a court, and at least thirty-one judges had to be in agreement about the verdict for a case to be settled. The fifth court had four dozen judges in the beginning of the case, and one dozen were removed by the litigating parties to reduce the number to three dozen; the reasons for removal were not legal but solely based on the preference of the litigants. The judges were appointed by the selection of chieftains. The jury did not decide the case, but decided if there was a case to decide, and if the case was not a legal issue they would state that it was so. The judges decided the verdict and the sentence, but sentences were usually forms of fines, banishment, and outlawry.<br />
<br />
Typically, a fine would be imposed for a crime. The fine was not, however, imposed to punish the crime but rather an allotment of compensation to be paid to the victim to satisfy the honour of the family that was offended. Compensation money was even the solution to a killing, except in rare cases. The law stated that if a killing was done, the body must be covered and someone informed of the event. This law, when obeyed, did not prevent retaliation on the part of the friends and family of the violently deceased, but assisted the killer in maintaining legal standing and the ability to acquire support. Typically, killing was the result of a previous conflict that escalated, or an outburst of fighting caused by some trigger or antagonisation, and was not isolated; rarely was a killing not matched by a body of offences enacted by the opposing party simultaneous or previous to the aforementioned killing. In extreme cases, compensation was not the retribution, but rather banishment or outlawry was verdicted. In outlawry, the person's possessions were forfeited, half to the prosecutor and half to people in the area who are lawfully entitled to receive the confiscated property. Outlawed people were not to be helped nor harboured, fed nor forwarded. Outlawry enabled the offended to exact revenge without fear of retaliation, for anyone could lawfully kill an outlawed man, and an outlawed man was abandoned by everyone and consequently became extremely vulnerable, being reduced to a legal status beneath than that of a rabbit. Banishment was less severe, but if the banished one returned, outlawry was automatically imposed. Both banishment and outlawry were not always for the entirety of a person's existence, for there were two versions of each; there existed both full and partial outlawry and banishment. Full was for the rest of the convict's life, partial endured a duration of three years. Two sentences of partial translated into full. Although it may seem simplistic, the Icelandic court system included many complexities.<br />
<br />
Precise verbology was required in legal proceedings. The wording and sequence of litigation actions were important; cases could be lost because of procedural errors. When both sides of a dispute had grievances (as was often the case) the first to publicly accuse had an advantage. If a case went to court before another, the accused could lose legal standing and so be unable to prosecute; the danger of early summoning (summoning to court, delivering a subpoena) was that the more time an enemy had to ruminate forthcoming litigation, the better prepared the enemy would be. It was wise to subpoena an enemy before being summoned oneself, but also wise to delay the summoning as long as possible. The accuser had until two weeks before a district thing assembly and four weeks before the Althing assembly to summon the accused to court, and at the Althing was required to declare the accusations from the Law Rock (a large stone on the grounds of the Althing with judicial significance). The case must be prepared properly. An improperly cited jury member would be removed from the case, and the case could be lost because of a lack of a jury. If the majority of the jury members were cited legally, the case could be maintained but the prosecutor would be fined heavily (three marks for each unlawfully cited juror), except this fine would be imposed as a separate accusation and so formed another layer in the dispute. Strategy in law was important, and so was knowledge.<br />
<br />
There was no one presiding over the court cases. The judges decided the case, the jury filtered the case, and the complainants pleaded the case. If a law was not known, it would not come into play. Lawyers were important; lawyers were not people of that profession but were simply people educated in law, therefore they knew the law and could strategise cases. Many people knew laws, and most chieftains knew the laws, but there were laws that people forgot. The Lawspeaker was required to have the entire body of laws memorised, and people would go to him with legal questions. He did not provide advice, he merely answered whether or not a specific law existed, and it was the responsibility of the one asking to formulate the question. The Lawspeaker told if something was the law, not what laws applied to a situation. Cases could be lost or salvaged because of a knowledge or lack of knowledge of law.<br />
<br />
The legal system of Iceland appears to have been designed to prevent feuds and encourage arbitration. The court system was complicated, difficult, and harsh. People could become outlawed, people could be fined heavily, people could lose cases because of technicalities, people could be sentenced without their grievances being addressed, people could loose the ability to bring their grievances to law. Procedural errors could do more damage than simply a lost case; errors could bring charges of unlawful proceedings and incur acidulous penalties. The courts decision was made by three dozen judges, and their verdict must be unanimous or nearly so, and the judges were merely freemen appointed by chieftains; cases could become deadlocked because of an inability for the judges to agree. It was often better to solve conflict outside of court, and many disputes were resolved by arbitration. Some disputes were dealt with by arbitration entirely, which prevented private matters from becoming public knowledge; sometimes they began in the courts and were moved to the arbiter's realm after the issues were revealed to the public arena, which made private matters public but publicity also prevented unfair dealings; sometimes resolutions were attempted by arbitration first, and moved to the courts if things were unsatisfactory for one of the parties.<br />
<br />
When disputes were addressed outside the court system, the arbiters followed the legal system, but as a governor to guide rather than to be strictly adhered to. Often the arbiters were chieftains, but sometimes they were powerful and influential people without chieftainships; those who served as arbiters were much more respected and prominent than the freemen appointed as judges, and were also known by the complainants. Although judges were impartial, they were also uninterested and uninvolved. Arbiters knew the case and were involved in the dispute as advisers and supporters, sometimes restrainers, and sometimes even participants; although they would have interests and would rarely be completely impartial, the arbitration was usually performed by multiple people who came from both sides of the dispute, but this was not without exceptions, as sometimes a single person was selected to resolve the issue. Often arbiters had interests in both sides, rather than one side only. Arbiters desired and worked towards settlement, and they were usually people who were striving in that direction before the case came before public law, if indeed they failed to prevent the dispute from progressing far enough to enter formal adjudication. The Scandinavian form of arbitration did not use a third party as today, but used a counsel comprised of people from the two parties; this system of primary party arbitration kept private disputes as private matters. Arbiters were respected and trusted by both parties, and their wisdom and honour was known by the contestants. They knew law and functioned well in and out of court, and were moderate. Lawful and unlawful action was taken into consideration, and the standard legal penalties were often imposed, but the stringent court proceedings were not relevant. The courts had to follow law strictly, but arbitration could make alterations to the norm out of expediency for the sake of reaching a settlement. Disputes were personal, and arbitration served the personal needs better than the courts. A return to peace, with the honour of all satisfied, was the goal and purpose.<br />
<br />
Arbitration was a more moderate approach to conflict resolution, and moderation was important. Although vengeance and valiance were honoured, and not being bested was honourable, exercising restraint gave honour. An overbearing and excessive individual was despised by everyone. When things were in proper balance a person was more respected. The balance of power between chieftains was particularly important, and if one chieftain became too powerful, or was gaining too great of control, the other chieftains would band together and address the issue to restore national balance. A person could loose support because of unruliness or immoderation.<br />
<br />
The honour of individuals took a higher place than the law. The law was grounded in the honour of the men who made and used it. People rose to prominence because of their quality, and their prominence is what granted them position. The wisdom of prominent people, chieftain or not, was what honoured them and made them prominent. It is these people who were arbiters and who's counsel was sought. It is because these people were respected that the Icelandic Commonwealth functioned with the honour system and gift economy. The law gave structure to society, and the legal system was for practical functionality and organisation of the honour economy. Valour and restraint in proper moderation was maintained by prominent persons and is what maintained the balance of the Icelandic nation. All the parts of Scandinavian culture and society functioned together for the effectiveness of the machine that was the Icelandic Commonwealth. This mechanism is well displayed by the peaceful conversion to Christianity.<br />
<br />
Iceland received multiple missionaries over the years. The conversion attempts were not successful, but converts were made, and slowly the number of Christians in Iceland increased. Some Christians were people of the faith who came from other lands, but some also were converted in Iceland from the old religion to Christianity. The Norwegian King, Olaf Tryggvason, who ruled from 995 to 1000, took a militant approach to missionary work. King Olaf made a career of converting all of Norway, and also turned his ambitions outside his borders. Tryggvason sent missionaries to Iceland and put pressure towards conversion. Iceland became divided between two camps, the old faith and the new faith. The division escalated and there was talk of dividing Iceland into two law systems, one Christian and one Pagan. This division threatened civil war, and so peace had to be arranged. The dispute, which began small but quickly grew into a major national problem, was essentially a feud not unlike the kind Iceland had experienced for many decades before. The two parties gathered in force at the Althing in c.1000 and disputed heatedly, but not violently. It was apparent that the land needed to be united under one law and one faith, and so each side selected a representative for arbitration. The Christian representative deferred to the Pagan, who was Lawspeaker. The Lawspeaker, although pagan, had sympathies in the other camp, and so was a good selection for a mediator. He spent an entire day in solitude, then declared that Iceland should be Christian after making everyone swear to abide by his decision. Although many people were displeased with the loss of the old faith, the conversion was upheld. A conversion that, in Norway did not last and divided the land in war, was peacefully successful in Iceland. <br />
<br />
The peaceful conversion of Iceland to Christianity was a triumph of Iceland's legal system that displays conflict resolution on an issue that reaches far deeper than blood feuds; religion is connected to the very soul of someone's being, and has always been the most dividing conflict across times, as belief holds the mind with roots that go deeper than any other personal issue. In a time when most of Europe was ruled by kings and suffered wars, Iceland was a relatively peaceful republic. Iceland had feuds, but never to the point of civil war, and the Icelandic Commonwealth endured free of international war. Early Medieval Iceland had a system of law and conflict resolution that was very effective in the Scandinavian honour society. Geography and the topography of Icelandic culture created a society in which vassalage was impractical. The relationship between chieftains and farmers was a form of mutual dependency similar to early feudalism, but lacking servitude and requiring the freedom of those involved. When other nations were moving towards centralised governments, Iceland remained decentralised with the power in the hands of people following local authority because of respect and not imposed control. Icelandic legal structure is a gem of history that warrants further study.<br />
<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Batey, Colleen, Helen Clarke, R.I. Page, and Neil S. Price. Cultural Atlas of the Viking World. Edited by James Graham-Campbell. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994.<br />
<br />
Byock, Jesse L.. Medieval Iceland: Society, Sagas, and Power. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988.<br />
<br />
Byock, Jesse L.. The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki. New York: Penguin Books, 1998.<br />
<br />
Byock, Jesse L.. The Saga of the Volsungs: The Norse Epic of Sigurd the Dragon Slayer. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.<br />
<br />
Byock, Jesse. Viking Age Iceland. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.<br />
<br />
Cohat, Yves. The Vikings: Lords of the Seas. Translated by Ruth Daniel. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, 1992.<br />
<br />
Dersin, Denise, ed. What Life Was Like In The Age of Chivalry: Medieval Europe AD 800-1500. Richmond: Time Life Inc., 1997.<br />
<br />
Dersin, Denise, ed. What Life Was Like When Longships Sailed: Vikings AD 800-1100. Richmond: Time Life Inc., 1998.<br />
<br />
Douglasson, Hrolf. Wirral Vikings: The Wider Context. Wirral: Countyvise Limited, 2005.<br />
<br />
Fitzhugh, William W. and Elisabeth I. Ward, ed. Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.<br />
<br />
Gravett, Christopher. Hastings 1066: The Fall of Saxon England. London: Reed International Books Ltd., 1992.<br />
<br />
Griffith, Paddy. The Viking Art of War. London: Greenhill Books, 1995.<br />
<br />
Harrison, Mark. Anglo-Saxon Thegn: 449-1066AD. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 1993.<br />
<br />
Harrison, Mark. Viking Hersir: 793-1066AD. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 1993.<br />
<br />
Haywood, John. Encyclopaedia of the Viking Age. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2000.<br />
<br />
Haywood, John. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.<br />
<br />
Heath, Ian. Byzantine Armies: 886-1118. London: Reed International Books Limited, 1979.<br />
<br />
Heath, Ian. The Vikings. London: Reed International Books, 1985.<br />
<br />
Hieatt, Constance B. and A. Kent. Beowulf and Other Old English Poems, 2nd ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1967.<br />
<br />
Larrington, Carolyne. The Poetic Edda. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.<br />
<br />
Magnusson, Magnus and Hermann Pálsson. Laxdæla Saga. New York, Penguin Books, 1969.<br />
<br />
Magnusson, Magnus and Hermann Pálsson. Njal's Saga. New York: Penguin Books, 1960.<br />
<br />
Magnusson, Magnus and Hermann Pálsson. The Vinland Sagas: The Norse Discovery of America. New York: Penguin Books, 1965.<br />
<br />
Page, R.I.. Reading the Past: Runes. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987.<br />
<br />
Pálsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards. Egil's Saga. New York: Penguin Books, 1976.<br />
<br />
Pálsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards. Eyrbyggja Saga. New York: Penguin Books, 1972, 1989.<br />
<br />
Pálsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards. Orkneyinga Saga: The History of the Earls of Orkney. New York: Penguin Books, 1978<br />
<br />
Pollington, Stephen. Rudiments of Runelore. Norfolk: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1995.<br />
<br />
Regia Anglorum. J.K. Siddorn. 9 Durleigh Close, Headley Park, Bristol, BS13 7NQ, United Kingdom. www.regia.org<br />
<br />
Sawyer, Peter, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.<br />
<br />
Siddorn, J. Kim. Viking Weapons & Warfare. Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd, 2000.<br />
<br />
Sturlason, Snorre. Heimskringla: or The Lives of the Norse Kings. Translated by A. H. Smith. Edited by Erling Monsen. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1990.<br />
<br />
Sturluson, Snorri. King Harald's Saga: Harald Hardradi of Norway. Translated by Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Pálsson. New York: Penguin Books, 1966.<br />
<br />
Wise, Terence. Saxon, Viking and Norman. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 1979.<br />
<br />Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-8868335258686659662015-03-01T11:37:00.000-07:002015-03-01T11:37:00.444-07:00Everyone treats other people like dirtAlthough everyone treats other people like dirt, not everyone treats dirt the same way.<br />
<br />
There are those who ignore dirt, those who don't notice it, and those who fear it. Some people avoid dirt, wearing dust masks, filtering dirt out of their lives. Others stay indoors and shut dirt out all together. There are street sweepers, who sweep up dirt to throw it away. Cleaners scrub dirt off and wash it down the drain. Some people pick up dirt in a vacuum and trash it. Some are hikers, and walk all over dirt, then wipe it off on a doormat before going home. Others are diggers and ground formers, forcing dirt to conform to their will. Some people hate dirt, and keep their houses clean. Some people tolerate dirt, and clean occasionally. Some people are filthy, and don't care about dirt.<br />
<br />
Some people are gardeners.<br />
A gardener treasures dirt. Dirt is the life of the plant, and gardeners value it. Gardeners understand dirt, and cultivate it. They work with dirt, seeing it for what it can be and tending to what it needs. A gardener knows about the differences in dirt, and what to add to each to give it life. A gardener helps dirt so that it can grow something special, be something wonderful, and thrive in life. The gardener seeks enrichment to fulfil potential to bring out beauty and health. A gardener sees the beauty and potential in something when most people despise.<br />
<br />
How we view something controls how we treat it. The value we place on someone and the potential we see in them influences our attitudes towards them and ultimately what impact we have on each other's lives. See what could be good instead of what is bad.Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-63730790512604340682013-10-29T00:51:00.000-06:002013-10-29T00:52:43.867-06:00PoetryI'll be sharing some more poetry in the future. I try to give credit if another poets style shines through my work, or if they inspire a line.<br />
<br />
"Untitled 1" by Kevin<br />
<br />
We live in a homogenized world of valley girls and bros.<br />
Like this, buy this, act like this. Prescribing identity like pills.<br />
Gone are the great thinkers of the past, no more Kants will be born,<br />
and Plato will have the cave beaten out of him until he daren't see shadows on <br />
the walls. <br />
Creativity is a crime, thou shalt NOT think.<br />
<br />
Insincerity and feigned politeness have replaced human connection, or what's left,<br />
humans made machines making humans in their own image.<br />
Now WE are the machine, and you will perform within specifications.<br />
<br />
Language, once a fountain of creation gurgling forth metaphor creating new understanding,<br />
has degraded into decorative syntax for the most <br />
primal of human needs,<br />
more easily expressed using grunts.<br />
Once a tool for expanding the mind, it is now a means of controlling it.<br />
<br />
The children of prosperity are poor indeed!<br />
Lobotomized by luxury, the Id, fed on a never ending stream of unachievable images of what it should want,<br />
hunger increasing with every bite.<br />
Music videos inspiring lifestyle envy, and no one sees the hologram.<br />
Cars and watches break and beauty fades like old photographs.<br />
But ideas cannot be killed, ideals are bulletproof,<br />
and humanity will live on, if only on the shelves of libraries.kkschmidthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11653857966015499143noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-26778953863965649642013-05-02T22:50:00.001-06:002015-03-03T15:01:00.115-07:00Hello and Hi "Hi" and "Hello", although slowly going out of use in some circles, still remain some of the most used words in our daily lives, yet what do they mean and where do they come from? Here is some information gained from old style dictionary reading.<br />
<br />
On the origins of "Hi" and "Hello".<br />
<br />
According to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, "Hi" is an interjection "used especially as a greeting", Middle English "Hy", 15th century. <br />
<br />
The Oxford English Dictionary lists "hi" (a parallel form to "hey") as an exclamation used to call attention, and dates it to 1475. "Hey" is a call to attract attention; also, an exclamation expressing exultation, incitement, surprise, etc. dating to 1225.<br />
<br />
"Hey" in the Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, by Walter W. Skeat, Oxford University Press, is an interjection; from Middle English "hei", and is a natural exclamation and interjection, i.e. "hei", "hey", and "ho". Historically used in literature in 1445.<br />
<br />
The Webster's 1828 dictionary lists "hey" as an exclamation of joy or mutual exhortation.<br />
<br />
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, seconds the Merriam-Webster's 11th, and lists "hello" and "hi" as greetings.<br />
<br />
According to the Kindle Oxford Dictionary of English, "Hello", also "hallo" or "hullo", is of late 19th century origin, and a variant of earlier "hollo", and related to "holla". "Holla" is an archaic exclamation used to call attention to something; originating in the early 16th century and used as an order to stop, cease, or "hold", from French "holà", from "ho" + "là", "là" meaning "there".<br />
<br />
According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, "holla" and "hollo" is an exclamation, used among seamen in answer to one who hails, equivalent to "I hear, and am ready". It is also related to "halloo". "Holla" and "hollo" is related to Saxon "ahlowan". "Halloo" seems to be related to the family of "call", French "haler". "Halloo" means to cry out; to exclaim with a loud voice; also to call or invite attention, or to encourage with shouts.<br />
<br />
An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, by Walter W. Skeat, Oxford University Press, lists "halloo, hallow": to shout; Middle English "halowen", to chase with shouts; from Old French "halloer", meaning to pursue with shouts. Of imitative origin, derived from "haller", or encourage dogs with hallowing. <br />
<br />
The listing for "hello" in the Oxford English Dictionary states that it is a variant of "hallo" and is an exclamation to call attention; also expressing some degree of surprise, as on meeting anyone unexpectedly. <br />
"Hallo, halloa", a later form of "hollo", German "hallo, halloh", also Old High German "halâ, holâ", emphatic imperative of "halân, holân": to fetch, used especially in hailing a ferryman. "Halloo" (perhaps a varied form of "hollo" and suited to a prolonged cry intended to be heard at a distance) is an exclamation to incite dogs to chase, to call attention at a distance, to express surprise, etc. "Hello" dates back to 1883; "hallo" dates back to 1781; and "halloo" dates back to 1605, and, as a variant of "hallew", and meaning "to urge or incite with shouts", dates back to 1568.<br />
<br />
"Hello" appears to have started with mimicking the sound of a dog's howl, or as a natural expression that is a result of exhaling with intention to express notice. "Hi" also seems to have started as a natural expression of surprise, similar to "oy".<br />
<br />
"Hi" and "hello" are apparently unrelated to each other etymologically, and also do not appear to be related to "hail" or "ahoy", but all are likely independently sourced in natural exclamations, similar to "ow", "ah", "huh", "wow", and "aaargh".<br />
<br />
The beginnings of "hi" and "hello" are probably from the natural sound of breathing out ("H" sound) and vowel sounds that occur when raising the voice when heightened mental alertness responds to an external stimulus. Pain and surprise often cause vowel sounds naturally. Originally "hello" had an "o" sound that included raised, rather than lowered, tone. Lowering the tone at the end of a word often accompanies cold declaration or calm puzzlement, while raising the tone often accompanies curiosity or surprise.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that one of the earliest written record of the use of the greeting interjection (hey) is the early 13th century, which is also the time when our records show many stories being transformed from oral traditions to documented literature. Writing from earlier times is not necessarily missing due to illiteracy, but probably from damaged libraries and lost records. The organic materials that early books were made of often do not survive time and its company. Creatures, rot, political unrest, fire, and pilfering often terminate documentation.Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-67285430710665365592010-05-20T18:20:00.002-06:002010-05-20T18:25:16.342-06:00On Job Creation and Economic GrowthIt seems to me, that people are oftentimes confused when it comes to issues of job creation and economic growth. They applaud business owners for making simple tasks difficult and adding additional, often unpleasant, positions in order to create more demand for employment. Let us take for example an argument I have heard on more than one occasion against the installation of self checkout machines in grocery stores. The argument asserts that because it eliminates the need for cashiers, the installation of self checkout machines is an economically undesirable circumstance. It is undeniably true that less personal are required to man and maintain this system, but what really happens to the labour? The machines decrease the need for labour while fulfilling the same function the cashiers previously did without any noticeable decline in efficiency or service quality. The same amount of money is collected from customers, and the same amount of merchandise is sold, but less labour is required. In the western world we have this idea of individualism that pits every man against every other man, but by working cooperatively, all employees of this grocery store can collectively cut down on the amount of labour they must perform, while maintaining their previous level of income. Since no one is required to man the registers, this labour has been freed up and may now be applied to other areas of the store, perhaps produce clerk or bagger. Suddenly these workers are only required to work thirty hours a week because the additional ten hours has been taken over by the displaced cashiers. Nevertheless, there is still enough payroll left to pay both the cashiers and the produce clerks their previous wage. Unfortunately, this is not what usually happens in our individualist society. Rather than working collectively to reduce their shared workload, the cashiers are often cast aside and forced to pursue other employment while management keeps the payroll savings for themselves. A small contingent of workers benefits, while the plight of the rest remains unchanged. This is wrong. Not only does this lead to public dislike of technologies that could reduce the common workload, but it forces displaced workers to create additional, often unneeded jobs in the economy creating products or offering services that are wholly and completely unnecessary. This may be economic growth, but the gain to human happiness is negligible. Work hours, for the average worker are not decreased, resources are needlessly consumed, and societies focus on material acquisition rather than cultural and moral evolution is reinforced. If we were to adopt fully, all technology available to us, with the goal of minimizing labour while maximising time for the individual to pursue his or her own education, free expression and personal betterment I predict we would see an explosion of invention and adaptation equal to that which moved us from the realm of simple-minded cave dwellers to civilized society. Man, by nature, is industrious. If you place an individual in an empty room with nothing but a crate of building blocks, that individual will eventually assign meaning and purpose to those blocks, even if it is merely asthetic. In the same way, if a person is given free reign, to construct things and utilize his or her surroundings in whatever manner he sees fit it is inevitable that we should see unparalleled leaps in technology and art, the likes of which have never been seen before.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-80398537327160245702010-02-01T16:14:00.002-07:002010-02-01T16:16:08.525-07:00God, Humans, and Community: a few thoughtsGod is infinite, and completely self-sufficient. God is in need of nothing. He is. He is and called Himself "I Am that I Am". He told Moses to tell the people "I Am has sent you". He is Jehovah. God is. God is one, but also three. Although one God, there are three persons in the trinitary Godhead. God sometimes refers to Himself as Elohim, a plural word, but used in the Tanakh in a grammatically singular context, showing that God is one trinity. The Holy Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In John chapter 5, Jesus explains that the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing, but also that the Son does as He wills and has life in Himself, as the Father has life in Himself, and all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father. In John chapter 14 Jesus explains that if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father, and if you know the Son you know the Father. God has perfect community in Himself. God is tri-communal.<br /><br />God has perfect community and fellowship within Himself. In Eden, the garden before sin, when everything was perfect, God and man had perfect community and fellowship. When God made the world, He looked upon it and said that it was good. In the beginning of the book of Genesis, God said that His creation was good, complete, whole, proper, as it should be; but after He made Adam, the first man, He said it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 3:18). In Eden, the garden of perfection, heaven on earth, when God and man were in harmony, God said it was not good for man to be alone. God, by design and decree, made mankind for community and marriage. Mankind needs fellowship and community because of God's design and decree.<br /><br />God made His creation to function with certain needs. Humans have need of food, water, shelter from harmful atmospheric conditions, protection from radiation, and a breathable oxygenated ambience. Humans not only have physical nutritional needs and physical protection needs, but also have emotional needs. God created humans as relational beings. God created man and women for each-other and designed them to need and desire each other. God created and designed family, and it is important and necessary. Mankind needs community, fellowship, and relationship. Monasticism and hermithood are unbiblical practices that lead to problems. Christians are not to forsake the assembling of themselves together (Hebrews 10:25). Christians are to encourage and edify each other, building up the Body of Christ. As believers, Christians have Jesus, but God says they also need other believers. God is a god of community and fellowship, and designed His creation to also be a creation of community and fellowship. Relationships are an essential ingredient of God's creation.<br /><br />Relationships and marriage are God's making. Needing and desiring it is how God made humans, and it is obedience to possess such needs and desires. God said that from the beginning He made them male and female, and they are to leave their parents and be joined together (Mark 10:5-9). What God has joined together do not separate. Romans 1 describes evil people and their sins, including rebellion against and perversion of the natural design of marriage. 1 Corinthians 7 says that it is better to marry than to burn. God has designed humans for relationship. It is unbiblical and wrong to belittle the need for intimate relationship. Division between men and woman is a form of attacking God's design, attempting to separate what God has decreed is to go together. One can serve God and follow Him best when one is obeying the intention and design of the Almighty, and therefore one who is not called to singleness does not reach full potential, nor pursues God best, when single. God intended man and women to work together in a romantic relationship, and humans function best and pursue God best when following God and His design.<br /><br />When a communal, relational being is forced to be alone, it rends the soul and mind. Loneliness will drive you insane.<br /><br /><br />(A little note of interest.: The Bible says that a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife. In Hebrew culture, the man stayed at his father's estate and added to the family house, therefore leaving his parents to join his wife is important, for the family is still residing in close proximity. The woman left her family estate to live with her husband on his dynastic estate, and so was naturally distanced from her parents by the physical geography. The man did not have the same physical distancing, and so needed to make sure that his new family unit was distinct from his old.)Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-20121503779548929262010-01-05T17:46:00.003-07:002010-01-05T17:54:52.954-07:00The Kantian system of ethics: introduction and defenseFor this essay I shall be writing on Immanuel Kant. Kant was a brilliant philosopher of eighteenth century Prussia, but his history and life are not of interest to the purpose of this essay. The purpose of this essay is to behold Kant’s system of morality. I shall examine this system by first looking at Kantian ethics and then at some of the beneficial aspects of it. I shall also examine a few objections to this system and show how these objections are not significant.<br /><br />There are several important items in Kantian ethics; these being the use of reason, the importance of duty, the significance of the good will, the categorical imperative, and human dignity. {Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath, Ethics: selections from classical and contemporary writers (Belmont, C.A.: Thomson Higher Education, 2007) 183-205.}<br /><br />Reason is that rational human thought that enables us to contemplate, question, and answer. There are two methods of thinking, rational thought and emotional thought. Emotional thought has no intelligent credibility and leads only to fickle, flawed guidance; it should only be used as a thermometer and trusted as a broken one. Emotions change with the most trivial of influences, and can be manipulated intentionally or accidentally by a myriad of options viz. food, music, light, smell, and imagery. The pressures of a schedule or the passionate speaking of a charlatan or the enticing photographs of an advertisement all influence emotions. To be guided by emotions can be equated to a sailor using a spinning child’s top as a compass. {A top being a commonly cylindrical or conoidal device that has a tapering point on which it is made to spin and that is used especially as a toy. To select north as the direction in which such a toy falls would be fickle guidance indeed!} Emotivism is useless in ethics. Reason is rational thought, and by reason we can understand what emotion confounds. Rational thought takes input and analyzes it using information gathered elsewhere and at other times. Reason uses logic and intelligence to explain what needs to be understood. Through reflection and examination we can learn what are the natural laws that govern the world around us.<br /><br />The categorical imperative, that being the principal of do as you would be done by, is an important aspect to ethical reasoning. The categorical imperative is a counter for the self-exception clause. All to often one of high moral standards will conjure excuses or reasons for a breach of ethics when the situation involves themself. It is hard to see clearly when one is in the middle of events, and so it is easy to hold oneself to a different standard. The categorical imperative is designed as a kibosh for this self-exception. The categorical imperative states to act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. {Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath, Ethics: selections from classical and contemporary writers (Belmont, C.A.: Thomson Higher Education, 2007) 196.} This way, when someone is going to conduct an action, that person can ask if it would be desirous for everyone to behave in the same manner; if the action does not pass this test, it must be amended or abandoned. The categorical imperative is not a method of determining right from wrong but merely an aid; it is a filter to check for double standards and to ensure the absence of inconsistency. This is not for the purpose of obtaining uniform results, but for the purpose of maintaining rational consistency.<br /><br />“Nothing in the world ... can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.” {Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath, Ethics: selections from classical and contemporary writers (Belmont, C.A.: Thomson Higher Education, 2007) 183.} The good will is what makes actions good. Many things that would be otherwise considered good may actually be bad in the absence of a good will. The good will is not good because of what it accomplishes but it is good in and of itself. It is good because it is willing. It is the intentions, not the results, which declare what is and is not good. It is not what is intended but the intention itself that is important.<br /><br />A right action must be done from duty. If the action is against duty it is not a right action even if it does have some apparent benefit. The good will of doing one’s duty is more important than a seemingly desirable result. If an action is not done from duty but rather from selfish intentions, that action is lacking the good will and is not good. An action could be done in accordance with duty but not from duty, and that action would have no moral value. The worth of an action is in doing it from duty with a good will. It might be one’s duty to do something, but if that person does it for reasons other than duty, the action being dutiful is merely coincidental. An action must be done because of a sense of duty and not selfishness to possess any ethical worth.<br /><br />Every human has dignity. This dignity must be respected. All of humanity must be treated with this respect; one must always consider the value of a single human being. It is important to treat a person as an end and never as a means. Whatever course of events is planned and for whatever reason, if it involves a person, it is necessary to imagine that the course of events stops at that person, and what that will mean for that person. If someone were to lie to someone else in order to acquire something needed, the first would be treating the other as a means to acquiring the needed something. If the person were to be treated as an end, the end of being wrongly deprived, instead of as a means, the means of acquiring something, it becomes apparent that the maxim of the action is unethical. The person should be treated as an end, as if nothing would occur after the encounter with that person, rather than a step in the process of something else. This is the basic principle of human dignity, that a person is always an end and never simply a means.<br /><br />There is good reason behind Kantian ethics. The principles of the system provide guidance that enables people to live together in peace and harmony. Selfishness is the blight of society that destroys both from within and without. A problem with selfishness is the phenomenon of maintaining a different maxim of behavior when it relates to the self then the maxim of behavior when it relates to others. Another problem is that of considering it permissible to exploit a person when it will provide something the selfish person thinks is expedient. Selfish people often think that they need something and that they even deserve it; if someone else has what they want the selfish person thinks that they have a right to have it, and may justify reasons to abscond said item. The principle of the human dignity and the categorical imperative, when properly followed, retard selfishness. When people are treated as ends and not means they are not merely steps in a process but are respected as human beings with dignity. The categorical imperative provides a rational groundwork for maintaining consistency. The categorical imperative causes people to treat others as they would want to be treated. These two principals provide an important basis for people to treat each other well.<br /><br />When results are sought at the expense of the methods, there is no end to the evils that can be justified. This is the phenomenon that has racked peoples throughout history; if something, however heinous, is perceived as being necessary for a desired end, that something will be viewed as acceptable. People can do the wrong thing when they think it is necessary for them, or not do the right thing when they fear the consequences. When people are moved by duty, the ends are not important. Motives driven from duty demand the right action and forbid the wrong action regardless of the ends that are desired or feared. The ends can not be known, but only predicted. The actions that are performed for the purpose of achieving those ends are what are important, and these actions must be actuated by duty with a good will.<br /><br />A good will and selfishness can not coexist. Selfishness drives people to pursue what will benefit them; a good will drives people to pursue what will benefit others. When people function with a good will, they do what should be done for everyone rather than what seems pertinent to their own desires. The will determines weather the person’s actions are just or unjust; even if a person manages to accomplish something desirable, if their intentions were coloured, then that person was not just in their actions. A person may be incompetent and accidentally effect an undesirable result, but if their intentions were honest and good, then the person can not be called evil; the results of their actions may be ill, but the person is not evil. It is important, however, that the person be moved from duty with a good will to do the right thing, and not simply to do the wrong thing to accomplish the right end. It is the method that must be done with a good will. An end sought with a good will is meaningless if the actions that are done to gain that end are not pure.<br /><br />Some have said that the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. These people object to the value of the good will, saying that intending right is useless and only accomplishing right is meaningful. But would it be preferred that people act with ill intentions? If the road to destruction is paved with good intentions, how much more is it paved with bad? Evil action is not justified by good intentions, but neither are evil intentions justified by good results. Some people say that they prefer good results to good intentions, for good results benefit society when good intentions do nothing without the results; good results may be desirable, but the ethical worth of the individual is in their intentions, for that is the character of the person. The character of a person is where their moral value lies, and not in their accomplishments. Many factors control the results, and these factors are out of the control of the individual, but the rightness or wrongness of the individual lies in the individual itself, in the character, in the will. Good results may be desirable, but the ethical value is in the individual; morality is not about social harmony but about virtuous people. Virtuous people create social harmony. The righteousness of an action is not in what it happens to accomplish, either purposefully or accidentally, but in the purpose of the individual performing the action, in the motive of the method. Consider two cities, in the first everyone acts with ill intentions but accidentally always obtain good results, in the second everyone acts with good intentions but accidentally always obtain bad results; the first society would be better to live in but the second society would contain the ethical people. It may be more desirable to live in the first society, but such a society could not exist; evil intentions accomplish evil results more often than good, and the best way to ensure good results is to seek them with good intentions. Evil intentions do not seek good results, but merely stumble upon them accidentally on occasion. The best way to have a good society is to fill it with good people, nay, the only way to have a good society is to fill it with good people.<br /><br />Thomas Nagel explained a scenario in which he considered Kantian ethics insufficient. {Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath, Ethics: selections from classical and contemporary writers (Belmont, C.A.: Thomson Higher Education, 2007) 359-370.} He described a situation in which a traveler wrecked a car on a country road. The vehicle is inoperative and the passengers are seriously injured. There is no one else on the road and the only house in the area contains no telephone, but only a grandmother, her small grandchild, and a car. The whereabouts of the car keys is unknown to the traveler, and the grandmother finds the traveler’s story incredible and incarcerates herself in the bathroom. Nagel proposed twisting the child’s arm in order to compel the grandmother to divulge the location of the car keys, insisting that this was the expedient action to provide the passengers with the necessary medical attention. Considering the temporary pain of the grandchild a lesser evil compared to the permanent injury of the passengers, Nagel insisted that the action would be justified. Looking at it from the standpoint of Kantian ethics, the traveler may have the good will to rescue the passengers, but the intent of hurting the child is evil. The traveler may be moved from duty to save the passengers, but the duty to treat the grandmother and grandchild in a good manner would be violated. The most important aspect, however, is that of human dignity. The child should be treated as an end, the end of being tortured, rather than as a means, the means of acquiring the car keys. The grandmother should also be treated as an end rather than as a means, for what trauma will she endure from a stranger inflicting pain on her grandchild in order to steal her car. And the situation compels one to question, what were the traveler and passengers doing in order to fall into such a predicament? Were they driving too fast? Why should the grandmother and grandchild be made to suffer for the cause of lessening the pain of the traveler’s error? The traveler and passengers encountered great trouble, but what right have they to force the innocent residents of the country home to share in their trouble? Nagel is suggesting that it is morally right, or even morally obligatory, to torture a child, torment a grandmother, and steal a car when one’s actions bring harm on one and one’s companions, regardless of the involvement of the aforementioned child and grandmother. This scenario provides an interesting thought question, but in reality, would there be any other options? Nagel made the parameters of the scenario quite plausible but perhaps there would be a tertium quid (Latin for third way), perhaps there would be a different option that did not require the evil of Nagel’s suggestion. How badly injured are the passengers; is there a first aid kit in the house? Even if there is no other way, how could it be right to inflict the evils before mentioned on the hapless victims in the house? When considering the principles of human dignity and responsibility, it becomes apparent that Nagel’s suggestion is unethical.<br /><br />There is an objection to Kantian ethics specifically targeted at the categorical imperative. This objection is that it is considered good to hold to a principle of “always give and never receive.” When put to the categorical imperative, this principle does not pass. If everyone were to give and never receive, there would be no one to give to, and the giving would never be permitted to occur. This objection to the categorical imperative is actually evidence in support of it. The principle of always give and never receive is a flawed principle, and the categorical imperative demonstrates this. It is possible for a society to have principles of etiquette that are impractical or unethical. It was the custom of some Inuit tribes for a man to share his wife with a visitor, who would have her for the night; this may be the custom of the society, and may be considered proper etiquette, but is in fact deeply unethical. Adultery is always wrong regardless of the laws or customs of the society or culture. Ethics is universal, not cultural. It may be considered plausible for a person to hold to the principle of always giving and never receiving, but this practice is in fact discourageable. If someone is willing to receive, that person should also be willing to give; and if some one is willing to give, that person should not deprive another of the joy of giving either. Refusing a gift is unkind, and a slight against the kindness of the benefactor. In some societies, the medieval Scandinavian societies for example, it is considered rude to refuse to give or receive hospitality, and refusing someone’s hospitality was an insult to that person’s honour and could even spark a feud. Principles that violate the categorical imperative are detrimental to social harmony. If enough people adhered to the principle of always give and never receive, it would become a great plague on society and the fallacy of this practice would be obvious. Both the practice of always giving without receiving, and the practice of always receiving without giving, are ill practices and should be avoided and never praised.<br /><br />Kant devised an ethical system that has many beneficial aspects. The use of reason and the respect of human dignity are fundamental to morality. The categorical imperative assists in determining what should be considered good and provides a protocol for rational consistency. The Kantian value system promotes individual good character and responsibility. Respect of human dignity and consistent reasoning are necessary for a functional society. The objections to Kantian ethics suffer from flawed values and fallacious reasoning. Kant’s ethical system is indispensable for living a moral life.<br /><br />{This is adapted from an essay that I wrote for a class paper. Due to online formatting constraints, I have attempted to replace endnotes with in-text notes. Other formatting has also been lost, and consequently this online form of the essay is inferior to the correctly printed version}Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-56344203766296038652009-12-15T15:28:00.001-07:002015-03-03T15:01:26.328-07:00A very brief introduction to European FeudalismEuropean feudalism developed out of expediency in the times of the fall of Rome. Germanic tribes were divided from each other and nations did not exist, but territories were occupied by groups of people with warrior kings at their heads. Tribal migrations and pillaging warrior bands created a European scene marked by danger and strife. The majority of people lived off the land as farmers, and even the higher ranks of society were farmers. In the time of Roman rule, those under Roman authority also had Roman support, but the collapse of the Roman Empire reversed the scene so that Rome no longer protected people from Germanic tribes, but instead Rome was invaded by Germanic tribes. This changed the power base of the continent.<br />
<br />
Warriors gained power by gaining support from warrior-farmers, and these warriors became tribal leaders and kings. Multiple tribes could unite, and even multiple kings united under high kings (Ireland is notorious for its plethora of kings with stratified rank). Warrior leaders obtained their followings and maintained personal security forces by gift-giving; silver, gold, weapons, and even food were generously released from the leader's possession to his comrades. This wealth needed to have an avenue of supply, and although food could be sourced from the landholdings of the leader, the primary supplier of the treasure used by leaders to buy support was the victims of plundering raids. These raids targeted the less defended villages because of the danger of equal combat in battle. The strong preying upon the weak was a defining characteristic of the early medieval European pillage and gift economy; in light of these practices, it is apparent why the stage was set for the mutual dependency relationship of reciprocal vassalage.<br />
<br />
Feudalism developed as a means of survival. The lower ranks of society needed land and protection, and the higher ranks of society needed labourers and soldiers. Without land, a person could not farm and would starve; without labour, a landowner could not run a farm and would have no food production. Without a warrior leader, villagers could not form an organised militia and would rout easily when attacked. The European mainland nobility came from the ranks of former Roman military commanders, or were non-Roman warrior leaders, and therefore understood combat and fighting forces; they knew how to fight, but needed soldiers. Although these warrior leaders often had personal followings of household troops, the forces were small and not adequate for defence against major assaults, but were only sufficient for contending with pesky neighbouring warrior leaders. The feudal system started as a simple co-operation movement of people uniting for survival.<br />
<br />
Mutual obligation between the people in the feudal relationship provided for the needs of both parties. As Europe became more unified, countries emerged. Kings owned the territories they controlled, and as their influence grew so did their landholdings. For these kings, who emerged out of the petty warrior kings of the past, officers were essential. Officers were needed for an army, and an army was needed to keep the kingdom. Officers were also needed to enforce the kings control over the regions of the kingdom, otherwise the king's court was all that empowered rule, and so the king's influence only lasted and extended to the locations and times of the royal court's residence. Lords emerged out of the warrior leaders of the past, and became leaders of manorial estates that took the form of plantations. These lords needed landholdings for their farms and peasantry, and the king needed taxes; if the king did not receive taxes, he would confiscate the land, which he thought belonged to him, and give it to a loyal lord. Lords also needed protection from the armies of other kings. This became a multi-levelled system of service and land giving. Kings lent land to lords, who in turn lent the land to peasants. Peasants promised service to lords, who in turn promised service to kings. This basic system became more complicated as time went on, with added ranks and variations, but remained the same structural essence.<br />
<br />
The feudal system was very much like the modern system of employment, in which employers need employees under them for work to be accomplished, and employees need employers over them to supply them with work, both seeking the other out because of mutual need. In feudalism, nobles needed vassals and sought them out, and vassals needed nobles and sought them out, entering the relationship out of desire for the benefits contained therein. The most important aspect of European feudal life was the reciprocal relationship of mutual need. The lives of the serfs may have been miserable, but they were less miserable than they would have been if they were out of the feudal relationship. Manorial villages provided community and protection for everyone. The feudal system was because of survival expediency.<br />
<br />
Feudalism originally was not a form of slavery and oppression (as understood by people of today, mostly influenced by France and very late Medieval and Renaissance times as viewed through the chronological bias lens of later eras trying to make their own time look better by changing the image of earlier years, a form of propaganda generated by Enlightenment persons) but was a system designed to protect people by forming a syndicate; the peasants were given land and protection from the lord, and the lord was given labour and military service from the peasants. The term "lord" comes from "hlāfweard" meaning "loaf-ward", or the keeper of the bread; the meaning of "lord" displays the concept of provision and generosity being the defining attributes and honour of rulers. This feudal system provided for the vital needs of the people and supplied protection, and protection was an important concern in a violent age with many marauding tribes pillaging and plundering and exacting treasures from their neighbours. Feudalism originated from freemen voluntarily becoming peasants under more powerful local chieftains (voluntary is a loose term, for circumstances and the land possessions of the chieftains, coupled with the political instability and violent hazards, gave them no other option).Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-17329194362210965112009-11-27T14:23:00.002-07:002009-11-27T14:26:44.026-07:00Hamlet: his problemKing: He tells me, my dear Gertrude, he hath found the head and source of all your son's distemper.<br />Queen: I doubt it is no other but the main, his father's death and our o'erhasty marriage.<br />Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, lines 54-57<br /><br /><br />Hamlet had problems. He had internal and external conflicts, including difficulty in knowing who to trust. Can he trust the new king? Can he trust the apparition? Can he trust his friends? Can he even trust himself? Is he delusional or of sound mind? Did he of a truth experience conversation with the ghost of his father, or has his mind, or perhaps a villainous spirit, implanted these notions of a murderous explanation to king Hamlet's demise? Can he justly impregnate his uncle with the blame of murder? Is his own mother trustworthy, or has the hasty transfer of spouses displayed her true colours? Both the internal and external are combined in the dilemmic conundrum of Hamlet's social conversation during the navigation of the metaphysical labyrinth.<br /><br />Junior Hamlet's father died; his uncle had both taken his father's crown and wife. Hamlet was displeased at the lack of a grieving period of proper duration. Hamlet's mother married too soon after Senior Hamlet's death. This swift marriage looked to Hamlet as a form of infidelity, a lack of dutiful love and devotion to the Late King Hamlet. This tragic, unsuspected death and impatient matrimonial union both in combination caused Hamlet to, in a form, lose his entire parental unit. Even before the spectral visitation, treachery was suspected, although not treacherous murder but a similitude of treachery on the part of those who's rightful occupation should have been mourning. Hamlet's father had been erased without warning, cause, or reason.<br /><br /><br />Oh, that this too too solid flesh would melt,<br />Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!<br />Or that the Everlasting had not fixed<br />His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! Oh, God! God!<br />How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable<br />Seem to me all the uses of this world!<br />Fie on 't, ah, fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden,<br />That grows to seed, things rank and gross in nature<br />Possess it merely. That it should come to this!<br />But two months dead! Nay, not so much, not two.<br />Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2, lines 129-138.<br /><br /><br />The anguish of Hamlet's recent life happenings were complicated by the message delivered by none other than the phantasm of his father. The spirit informed Hamlet of its condemnation to purgatory and the suffering thereof, and gave reason for the recent death. Murder, foul and unnatural, untimely and traitorous; the mutineer the thief. King Hamlet was killed by his brother before his recent sins could be accounted for, and so lost life, kingdom, wife, and amnesty from purgatory. Grave tidings indeed, and much evil accusation on the head of young Hamlet's uncle.<br /><br />Following the ghastly herald's visit Hamlet must, in the midst of the emotional storm caused by recent events of death, marriage, and haunting, resolve the puzzle laid before him by his father's spirit. Is the ghost worthy of trust? The ghost's authority and the validity of the tale are things Hamlet was unsure of, but had sincere suspicions upon. A test had to be devised for the purpose of proving the new information. Should the test reveal accuracy in the apparition's story, the riddle of right action becomes the argument of the mind.<br /><br />Further complications were imposed on young Hamlet by the members of the royal court. The king and queen, as well as their courtiers, were concerned about Hamlet's depressed countenance and further alarmed when he behaved with a semblance of insanity. After the encounter with the ghost, Hamlet chose to act as if he had lost his wit so as to defend his purpose of espionage. Normal behaviour was reserved for Horatio, Hamlet's only trusted partner and fellow investigator. When alone or with his detective associate, Prince Hamlet lost his disguise, but in all other company a facade of madness was instilled. Thus perturbation marked the brains of Elsinore, giving hospitality to the guests scheme and plot. The king and his cohorts directed shenanigans to solve their problem of Hamlet.<br /><br />Hamlet needed to retribute the assassination, but first the facts about the coup needed to be verified. Is Hamlet's uncle a treacherous killer? Guilt must find it out. For this purpose, Hamlet staged a theatrical display of regicide in order to gage the countenance of the king upon his observation of the spectacle. Hamlet needed to acquire a second opinion to insure the trial, but a single juror was all he could muster because his friend base was well nigh vacant, for his mother's defection and the presence of betrayal and intrigue left him quite alone to solve the matters, and Horatio was his only comrade. To forbid the existence of misinterpretation Hamlet employed Horatio's witness to appreciate the king's response to the entertainment. The enlisted ranks were small but adequate for the task, and guilt was found in the royal person.<br /><br />Hamlet's problem of discovering the reason behind his father's death, and the guilty party, were solved without excess of difficulty, but his main problem was still at large. The major problem was what to do about the crime. The princely vigilante set about to avenge his father and sort out the mess, and complications and resolutions occupied the majority of Shakespeare's play, with the final action of Hamlet and his solution falling within the finale. There were other issues, but they are side or sub items adding flavour.<br /><br />The business of Ophelia was a concern of Hamlet's, but not counted among his problems. His relationship with her was put on hold, and later ended. Hamlet's sincerity in regard to Ophelia may be postulated upon, and he did have love for her even if the quality of that love could be subpoenaed for doubt. When conversing with her under hidden watch, Hamlet admitted to loving her once, but also stated that he loved her not; later at her funeral he declared his past love for her. Her death and the accidental manslaughter of her father added to the complications, but Hamlet's problem was of his father's murder and the responses to his antics. The Ophelia affair was but a segment of the problem of the royal court's dealings with Hamlet, and the royal court's responses to the prince's behaviour was but a convelusion to the problem of the regicide.<br /><br />Fortinbras and the Norweigan conflict was even more removed from young Hamlet. The murdered king had a war with Norway, and this lead to further military conflict between Norway and Denmark, but the international conflict was between people who were segregated from the immediate concerns of Hamlet with the exception of the king of Denmark, but the matter was only a distraction and not pertinent to the Danish prince affair. Norway was a part of the story but not of Hamlet's problems.<br /><br />The saga of the Prince of Denmark bears many storylines. There are problems, solutions, conspiracies, concerns, and affairs, but most are decorations to Hamlet's problem of his father's death. And so, although garnished with many side and sub stories, it becomes apparent that the tale of Hamlet is that of a man plagued with the disease of family problems.Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-1886643553625059582009-08-06T17:48:00.000-06:002009-08-06T17:48:36.992-06:00http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Pirate-Bay-Devises-DDoS-Retaliation-102391<br /><br />Just when you thought the guys from The Pirate Bay had given up and started kissing the entertainment industry's ass like everyone else, there came a glimmer of hope. The verdict of the trial hit hard, and the appeal is still a long ways off, but in the meantime, our friends at TPB are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for the corperate goons running the prosecution. Read the article! It's almost as brilliant as paying the entire fine in pennies delivered by dumptrucks. I commend these guys for their unbreakable spirit and their dedication to freedom of information and open networks.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-47628063235598597042009-08-05T01:33:00.000-06:002009-08-06T17:46:40.680-06:00On Vigilante Justice<br /><br />Police cannot be everywhere at the same time. They cannot see everything. They cannot always respond fast enough to solve a bad situation. They have been tasked with protecting the publice and punishing the perps; nevertheless, they are not superhuman. The existance of the police does not relieve us of our right to protect ourselves and the people around us. Government fanboys would have us call emergency services while our sisters and wives are raped, our cars are stolen, and our property vandalised. Personal responsibility would dictate that we respond with appropriate force to resolve the situation and, if possible, apprehend the transgressor. Every gun in a citizens pocket is like an additional cop on the streets. We are all enforcers of the law, and who would transgress that law knowing that they are surrounded by armed law enforcement wherever they go? If I see a man beating a weaker man, it is my duty as a fellow citizen and a member of our legal bund to aid the latter even if it means harming the former. If my property is being vandalized in a manner than transgresses the law, it is my right as a citizen to ensure that it is no longer vandalized. There is no limit to the force I can use, as long as it is necessary and not excessive. If I am robbed regularly and security systems and guard dogs have not been effective, then it is only right that I should be permitted to install pop-up machine guns in my lawn. This isn't taking the law into my own hands. The law is already in our hands, we have simply used them to create police departments and security firms. We have outsourced our duty to protect ourselves, yet we have not lost our right to do so.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-30419433122064910312009-07-21T03:17:00.002-06:002009-07-21T03:28:35.151-06:00Breaking the ChainsHello, if you are reading this, I consider you a friend. I know many of you from school, some from church, and others I have only met online. Firstly, I thank you for your friendship.<br /><br />I have one request: IF YOU READ THIS, PLEASE READ ALL THE WAY TO THE END BEFORE RESPONDING. That is all.<br /><br />I am an atheist. Yes, you read correctly. This has been a long time coming, and I think it is finally time, that I make public the private doubts that have been building for several years now.<br /><br />My experiences with Christianity as a child were quite varied. Unlike many of my friends, I did not grow up in a Christian home, and it was not until I was in elementary school that my mother regularly started attending church at the invitation of a friend. Though my father never attended church, I was often “dragged” along on these expeditions...rather unwillingly I might add. As with most kids, I was much more excited by box forts, sandboxes, and jungle gyms than by long boring talks about topics that no ordinary kid would find exciting. Nevertheless, as I grew older, I did so in the structure of Christianity, attending church, children's church, and for a few years a Christian school. I learned about all the different bible stories, learned songs about “father Abraham” and the wise man who build a house on a rock. I learned about morality and why we shouldn't take things without asking, hurt other people, or covet someone else's belongings. During these early years I did not really question what I was taught.<br /><br />As I grew older, I spent time in various children's churches and youth groups. I participated in Awana at several churches, and went to a Christian summer camp with my school. During this time, I distinctly remember becoming confused about the concept of salvation. Why did I feel exactly the same when I was “saved” as before. I took up the amusing habit of “re-saving” myself on a regular basis just to be safe. Just before my last year of junior high, my father got out of the military and we moved to Colorado Springs. Immediately my mother found a church for us to attend and I have very fond memories of this time. I met many kind people, and my youth-group participated in a variety of enjoyable activities such as Christian concerts, trips to Elich Gardens, and game nights. After a few years of this the church broke up. I don't feel it necessary to go into the details here because they do not really pertain to the point of my story. Let it suffice for me to say that the breakup of the church was not planned and was a real upset for the members of that congregation. <br /><br />By this point, I was pretty well integrated into the culture of the church. I had long since given up my habit of “re-saving” myself, and felt very secure in my “eternal destiny”. I never really questioned whether such a thing existed, I just knew that it worked for me. I had great friends, a good family life, I was happy, and I saw no reason to doubt or explore my options. After the breakup of our first church in Colorado Springs, we began to attend what was then known as the Mountain Springs Vineyard. It was a larger church than any of the churches we had previously attended, something I enjoyed, but later caused my mother to seek out smaller churches where she considered the people to be friendlier and more personal. By that time, I had become well rooted at MSC. I was a regular attendee at services, a happy member of the youth group, an occasional participant on mission trips, and I continued to grow in my dedication to the church and the biblical principals for which it stood. There was a time where I would attend church multiple times a week, staying for multiple services, participating in bible studies, doing street evangelism, and happily volunteering my time in the soundbooth, or wherever else I had an opportunity to help out. I believed wholeheartedly and saw myself being involved to the same degree for an infinite amount of time in the future. It was during this time period when I made many of my closest friendships, many of which survive to this day. <br /><br />I have always been bad with numbers, so I don't know how many years passed, but at some point I began to feel myself distancing from the extremely church-integrated life I had led in the past. I stopped volunteering in the soundbooth, and I no longer helped with the junior high students on the weekend. Why this happened, I still don't entirely know. If I look back, it seemed like I was doing everything right, yet somehow I was drawn away. I still attended services, but I had become quite dissatisfied with the church and with Christianity in general. I recorded many of my thoughts from this time period in a notebook. I a bit of a poet, and find great joy in recording my thoughts and ideas in artistic form. Some of these writings are personal, but I don't usually mind sharing them when someone asks. It was during this time that I began to subconsciously realize that many of my views and ideas about life where poorly supported or altogether ridiculous and began to generate complex rationalizations for them. I never took seriously the possibility that I could just ditch them and follow the truth wherever it might lead me. This realization now stands in the center of my world-view and I have never found anyone who could sum it up as beautifully as the German philosopher and poet Frederich Nietzsche did in this poem “Mein Glück”Seit ich des Suchens müde ward,<br />erlernte ich das finden.<br />Einst heilt mir der wind Widerpart,<br />Jetzt segle ich mit allen Winden.<br /><br />Since I tired of the search,<br />I learned to find.<br />Once the wind opposed me,<br />Now I sail with all winds.<br /><br />I spent so many years of my life fighting the wind of logic. I sailed my ship of thought against the winds of reality and the stronger they grew, the harder I rowed. Now I am content to find and learn. I no longer oppose the wind, but rather allow logic to blow me in whatever direction I will find truth. Since I value logic so highly, I only think it fair that I should expound on it, and flesh out some of the reasoning behind my deconverion.<br /><br />Logic is perhaps the most important thing in the world. It is the basis of human understanding, and thought. Try to have a thought or come up with an idea without using logic to some degree. The very process of language requires logic. Without logic, we are like lower animals, driven only by the most primal instincts, and incapable of complex thought or any form of understanding.<br /><br />Oftentimes, people have told me that logic is flawed and that it cannot be trusted. What then are we to trust? Can we trust God? If so, what is the basis of our trust? One cannot honestly say that they arrive at their faith in God via the same logic they claim is flawed. This leaves us with two options. Firstly, there is the possibility that logic is not flawed and that if we follow it we will eventually arrive at the conclusion that God can be trusted. If this is true, then why is it that so many Christians cry foul when you ask the hard questions, ones without simple answers? The second option is that because our logic is flawed we can never know anything about anything including God. That doesn't work for me, and upon careful inspection I don't see how it can work for any rational person, but I don't intend to dissect everyone else's thought processes.<br /><br />And now, I must become somewhat disorganized because the vast quantities of ideas and thoughts I am dealing with do not easily lent themselves to organization and categorization.<br /><br />Magic, miracles, and the supernatural are often claimed when our understanding is incomplete. Yet it seems that time after time these superstitions have been replaced with understanding as our capability for reason grows. Once we thought that the world was flat; pending the invention of physics, the telescope, and modern cartography, we have come to the realization that our planet is a sphere. Once we thought that diseases were the result of demonic possession; now, thanks to modern medicine, we understand germs and viruses. Once we thought that the universe was static; then physics introduced us to the big bang and now we are discovering that reality may be even more extensive and far reaching than that, encompassing multiverses and the cyclic generation and destruction of universes over millions of years. Sea monsters were once considered a legitimate threat; but now no rational individual would tolerate such nonsense. Nevertheless, religion claims to be exempt from this, and as new discoveries are made, they are resisted for as long as possible, and then accepted only grudgingly and with many stipulations and modifications so as not to weaken related superstitions. Since logic is the basis of our minds I refuse to participate further in this willful delusion, even if I am in the smallest of minorities.<br /><br />Religion often attaches itself to entirely non-religious and in the case of Christianity non-Biblically supported concepts and ideas. In many parts of the United States it is impossible to be against the death penalty and still be considered a “good Christian.” From the way people act, it seems absolutely certain that the Jesus was a rich white, pro-life, pro-death penalty, gun-toting, capitalist, anti-welfare, Republican. This is not up for debate.<br /><br />The Religious exhibit more hypocrisy than any group on the planet. They consistently judge others, while secret practicing all the things they pretend to detest. Why is it that Christians, claim that Christian marriage is so different, yet they get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? If God has truly placed two people together why is it that someone like Ted Haggard who vehemently preached against homosexuality turned out to be a closet homosexual and drug addict. I didn't sit there and watch him do what he did, but in the weeks of denial that followed, it was pretty easy to see through the bullshit and discover what was really going on.<br /><br />Christians embrace wholeheartedly the hierarchies in society which are alleged to give some men power over others and even go so far as to designate dissent as a “sin.” Groupthink is encouraged and individualism is frowned upon. Anyone who dares to step outside the norm or ask questions is immediately deemed a thought criminal. If anyone can be said to have thoroughly understood such things it would be George Orwell. His book 1984 seems to perfectly foreshadow the direction in which our country, and likely many other countries, are headed. Doublethink as Orwell called it is now commonplace. Everyday, people willfully delude themselves in order too escape the consequences of reality and the world they live in.<br /><br />Rather than attempting to understand the true nature of morality, the religious subscribe to the idea of a cosmic hangman who sees every thought and action and will punish anyone who deviates from the laws and rules revealed by his “spokesmen.”<br /><br />Rather than try to make the world we live in a better place, the religious find themselves wishing for Armageddon. If the whole world gets nuked because of some religious disagreement, they won't view that as a bad thing. Rather than practice love and tolerance, they have chosen to judge and hate. They wish for then “end-times” and many are actively attempting to expedite their arrival.<br /><br />I've probably lost at least half of my readers by now, so I will forgo any further redress and begin to wrap things up. I quit. My decisions are based on logic and reason. I will not willfully delude myself, and I will not play the game simple for social expedience. I reject Christianity and choose instead to follow the truth wherever it might lead me. Unless they are scared that it cannot stand up to scrutiny, I think a real Christian should be OK with this. After all, if the truth is the truth, then surely the questions I ask, no matter how numerous or complex should eventually bring me to the point where I once again believe. I suppose this is a good place to insert one of my favorite quotes from my journal.<br /><br />Unlike many people, I do not have the ability to repress true belief in order to obtain temporal comfort or social expedience. Many times have I longed for ignorance and the simplicity it brings – yet I have done so in vain. That which is thought cannot be unthought and that which seems true cannot be falsified by power of will.”<br /><br />I hope that some of you will be able to see past our differences and that we will remain friends. I realize that many of you will be unwilling to do so. Nevertheless, I wish you the best.<br /><br />-Kevin<br /><br />P.S. I apologize for any grammatical errors. This was written all at once, and I did not do an awful lot of proofreading.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-47928817200357870172009-04-19T12:31:00.013-06:002009-04-19T13:58:35.334-06:00On Wireless Connectivity<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhERHFVbovHbAGrBejjIZ-IO3Q6VVIoUYx_sh2bOMUBXDcIcyzEmpHDjb9bSZgTNWleJLncQMaswrVwChzZoIH66FdvxwgXnR1-8RbcM9sI3Q2dVrM6sAoR_1eh3cQJ_WXOs0CrVKvcLehG/s1600-h/celltowercclicencesmith.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5326486398862889938" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 213px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhERHFVbovHbAGrBejjIZ-IO3Q6VVIoUYx_sh2bOMUBXDcIcyzEmpHDjb9bSZgTNWleJLncQMaswrVwChzZoIH66FdvxwgXnR1-8RbcM9sI3Q2dVrM6sAoR_1eh3cQJ_WXOs0CrVKvcLehG/s320/celltowercclicencesmith.jpg" border="0" /></a> Lets face it, as much as we love our country, we have fallen behind the frontrunners in regards to technology. America does lots of things very well. Our entertainment media is the envy of the world. Our East Coast market cities are the dream of many an immigrant. Our spacious countryside is a relief to those crammed on an island with millions of other people. Our technology however, especially in the field of wireless communications, could use some work.<br /><div>Most of our problems stem from the lack of infastructure. Just recently we made the final switch between analogue and digital cell phone towers. Now that carriers are finally free of the burdensome task of maintaining analogue infustructure to match their new digital infastructure, perhaps there will be money for improvement. Carriers must not only placate the masses by providing enough speed and bandwidth for them to do all the stupid things the advertisments tell them they like doing, but they must look to the future, and build a network that will allow individuals and businesses to compete on an international level. By now internet should be the new radio. Personally, I already listen to web radio whenever I have a working connection. And there you have the problem. I do not always have a working internet connection on my phone or other devices. My phone has 3G in most of the city, but it is prohibitivly expensive. If I am downtown, at school, or at a coffeeshop, I have wifi access. If I am at home I can tether to the wall. Where is the standardized network that will unify our technical lives and provide connectivity without boarder or end?</div><br /><div>While we are finally beginning to build out our 3G networks to smaller towns and cities, most of the world is putting together state of the art 4G networks! Even Russia is building a 4G network right now. Tell that to your grandfather and he might cry out of shame. Japan, perhaps one of the most advanced countries when it comes to technology, aided by their relatively small geographic footprint, and extremely dense population centers, has made video calling relatively standard and has wireless connection speeds that will make you wet yourself. Putting aside wireless for a second, Japan recently offered to consumers (not just built in a lab) fiber optic connections that would allow 1Gb/s synchronous traffic in the home. Thats 1Gig per second in, and one gig per second out, at the same time! You could send the entire contents of a typical american harddrive in about 2 and a half minutes. Back to the topic of 4G, Europe too has begun to build 4G networks. Our falling behind the curve is also part of the reason why we get older less capable devices. If you are interested in a good phone and have a few minutes search the web for my dream device: the Touch Pro HD. Available in Asia, Russia, and parts of Europe it has a screen with a pixel count comparable to that of a netbook. That's a laptop screen on a phone!</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>What can we do about it?</strong></div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Step One: Open Networks</strong></div><div>We must stop our restrictive practices of locking phones to carriers and limiting mobile access to the web. Additionally, all throttling of speeds on any internet protocol must be eliminated. Phones should be bought from the manufacturer, sim cards should be bought from the carrier.</div><br /><div><strong>Step Two: Standardised Networks</strong></div><div>America has to standardise our networks. Currently most US carriers use GSM based phones, but a few carriers use CDMA. While CDMA has its benefits, it is not as open, it is owned by one specific company and it is not used in much of the world. Japan, Europe, and Russia all use GSM. So Verizon and Cricket: It's time to switch. Why is this so important? If all carriers are using the same standard, we can establish a better functioning and more robust wireless bandwidth marketplace. If one carrier does not want to build towers in a certain area, they can buy or trade for bandwidth from another carrier that does provide service in that area. Also, if a carrier experiences an unexpected amount of network usage that would exceed their ability to provide service, they can use bandwidth from another carrier who might be experiencing a less than average load. A unified protocol makes this standard. It also means that when we take our phones to another country, we have only to remove the sim card from our carrier and insert one from the foreign carrier.</div><br /><div><strong>Step Three: Charge for Data not Content</strong></div><div></div><div>In the US a lot of carriers are trying to sell content. Their content is usually substandard, but it is pushed on the consumer by placing shortcuts all over the phone, and making it cheaper to access than other options event though it is inferior. This practice is in violation of the spirit of network neutrality and must end. If we want to move alongside th e technological leaders of this age, charges levied against consumers must be based on bandwidth consumed, not on content.</div><br /><div><strong>Step Four: Modern Networks</strong></div><div>It's time to upgrade our 3G networks. I don't care if they are still selling iPhones. They won't work any worse than they do now. It is true that the iPhone fanatic in rural Montana might never get his 3G connection, but should we really impeded the progress of the nation while we extend 3G to areas like this where it may not even be profitable? Isn't that what all you hypercapitalists are always whining about? The profit is in the cities, it's time to upgrade the networks. We need to be on the edge. Let's analyse how the 4G transition is coming around the world. If it's just beginning, it's time to jump on board. If 5G standards are already available, it would be advisable to skip directly from 3 to 5. Yes, it will be expensive, but no one ever said being one of the best would be cheap.</div><br /><div><strong>A few stats:</strong></div><div>4G Networks:</div><div>100 Mb/s moving at high speed</div><div>1 Gb/s stationary access</div><div>And thats about all you get, because everything else I could find was so ripe with technobabble even I couldn't understand it. </div><br /><div>Image Credit: Flick'r User "Smith" under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence</div><br /><div></div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-66965730647201577832009-03-13T08:57:00.002-06:002009-03-13T09:05:51.974-06:00503 Billion Barrels of Oil on American Soil!<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">T</span></span>he U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana and check THIS out:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">T</span></span>he Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion. 'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.<br /> <br />“<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">T</span></span>his sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. Because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >A</span>nd if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >U</span><span style="font-style: italic;">. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >H</span>idden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">T</span></span>hey reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:<br /> <br /> - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia <br /> - 18-times as much oil as Iraq <br /> - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait <br /> - 22-times as much oil as Iran <br /> - 500-times as much oil as Yemen <br /> - and it's all right here in the Western United States .<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">H</span></span>OW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy....WHY? James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire middle east more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post. Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists? Got your attention/ire up yet? While you're thinking about it, and hopefully more than a little angry, do this:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >P</span>ass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should not complain about gas prices, because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">B</span></span>y the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!<br />GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind. <br /><a href="http://www..usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911">http://www..usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911</a><br />or <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-86066720297402315092009-01-28T20:43:00.006-07:002009-01-28T20:51:39.391-07:00Real Beer May be Real Bad for Local Economy<div>Greetings Coloradan!<br /><br />I don’t really know where my readership, if indeed I have any, comes from, but even if you are not from Colorado you may still find this article interesting.<br />I am writing in response to the recent push to legalise the sale of “real beer,” that is beer with alcohol content in excess of three and two tenths percent by volume, in grocery stores, convenience stores, and other establishments which were previously restricted to the sale of “near beer,” beer with an alcohol content of no more than three and two tenths percent by volume. An oversimplified explanation of the conflict would be 7/11 vs. Local Liquor. Both sides of the argument have valid points, <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU8B3JS0Dc6gZbUJmbHiYzYUr1wq2G1wNfM9EPfKUNbDkZHkXq3NbofwaypHFLO8zKKQuMLWKAtps-uPtIr76D8p8OiA-zwr2CXoqwEBFRfQDxT_sLLuTnNK4OKl732bl3GklmGEH45DM1/s1600-h/lotsofbeer.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5296558219327001730" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU8B3JS0Dc6gZbUJmbHiYzYUr1wq2G1wNfM9EPfKUNbDkZHkXq3NbofwaypHFLO8zKKQuMLWKAtps-uPtIr76D8p8OiA-zwr2CXoqwEBFRfQDxT_sLLuTnNK4OKl732bl3GklmGEH45DM1/s320/lotsofbeer.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Supporters of the current laws are most likely to cite protection of the local economy, protection of youth, and preservation of selection as their primary grounds for maintaining the current regulations. I would like to examine these claims one at a time. Colorado law is very strict about what liquor stores can and cannot do. Liquor stores may not carry most food products, must carefully control who they sell too, and were formally forced to remain closed on Sundays. Additionally, the ability of liquor stores to form chains is severely restricted. All these factors have worked together to create a locally owned liquor industry composed mostly of mom and pop style stores with a few larger stores mixed in. Some offer convenient locations; some offer unmatchable selections. Opponents of the repeal of our current laws fear that if grocery stores were permitted to sell full strength beer, it would cut into the profit margins of the local stores, and would also reduce the selection of beers available. While a grocery store is probably going to carry only Budweiser, Keystone Light (otherwise known as watered down piss), and Coors, a locally owned liquor store, which only sells alcohol, is far more likely to carry hard to find, local, and exotic products like Warsteiner, Phantom Canyon, Gruenfelder, Bristol, etc. Both the preservation of this selection and the protection of these local businesses are likely to benefit customers and independent businessmen in Colorado. Another argument likely to be cited by opponents of the change in our alcohol laws is that by increasing the amount of outlets licensed to sell real beer, we will be making it easier for underage drinkers to obtain alcohol. It is plain and evident to anyone who has not purposefully deluded themselves into believing otherwise, that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act is an utter, complete, ridiculous, and ludicrous failure. Rather than making things safer, the MLDA has had the effect of pushing teen drinking underground into more dangerous situations, and rather than teaching moderation and responsibility has enshrined alcohol as the “forbidden fruit” of twenty-first century America. There are very few countries with drinking ages near as high as ours, yet many of them have less of a problem with irresponsible consumption of alcohol than we do. I would argue that parents should set a positive example in their own drinking habits and raise their children to do the same. It should not be a crime to pour a twelve year old a glass of Champaign on New Year’s Eve. Every young person should experience puking their guts out into a toilet, or falling down a flight of stairs at least once in order to foster a respect for alcohol and the responsibility that comes with its consumption. So while these lobbyists may have other valid arguments, the protection of youth is absolutely invalid.<br /><br />While supporters of the law cite their various grounds for it to be upheld, opponents are not without arguments of their own. Proponents of the liberalisation of Colorado’s alcohol laws are likely to cite increased competition and fair business practices in support of their position. The change in laws would also have the desirable effect of making alcohol more visible possibly diminishing its taboo status in American society which has contributed to our generally unhealthy view of its consumption, and the unhealthy patterns of consumption often prevalent among College Students and others. Proponents of the free market (don’t get me started) would likely argue that by repealing these blue laws, we will create more competition which would drive down the price of beer. They may be correct, but as previously stated, this would not be the only effect. Also, they allege that it is an injustice that the liquor companies are permitted to sell full strength beer while the grocery stores are restricted to near beer. This makes me wonder if they would support legislation permitting liquor stores to sell food and other items in addition to liquor.<br /><br />The liberalisation of alcohol laws in Colorado is a complex issue, and the many faceted arguments do not lead to any concrete conclusion, but rather raise more questions and beg us to furthur examine the issues at hand. One thing is certain: the US as a whole needs to rethink its attitude toward the consumption of alcohol and bring it more into line with logic, and that of the rest of the world.<br /><br />Photo Credit: <a title="Link to piffy's photostream" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/piffy/">piffy</a> under an <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en">Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic</a></div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-47308575698928738022009-01-23T17:01:00.005-07:002009-01-23T17:11:44.869-07:00Speed Doesn't Kill, Idiots Do: Why we need real drivers training. (An Intro)<div>Its been a while since I've made a longer post. I have decided to publish something that I wrote a while back. This is not new, but after looking through it I found that most of the ideas were still relevant.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Contrary to popular belief, even among traffic engineers, it is not speed that makes a driver dangerous, but a combination of other factors which may or may not include speed depending on the situation. From a purely scientific viewpoint, speed, until you reach the speed of light and cause strange things to start happening, is completely harmless. We are spinning through space at speeds so extreme we can hardly fathom what it would be like to pass an object at that speed. Some of us ride bullet trains or maglev trains that reach speeds as high as 360kph. Travellers ride on jets going down the runway at speeds faster than those most cars are capable of. Despite these many instances of speed people’s daily lives, the belief that “speed kills” is still widely held. If anything, all these examples of safe speeding should tell us that it is possible to design our cars and roads in a way that permits rapid and safe use as well. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidgGrXJ_1a4IRQEDu4KhL755L04dfau6dtZ8Fw809bI0b2Ad95eOZCuomyBao3Y19EeYh9we_vEkzv49xc8cLJ6QUT0tVh3lzCxB99CTWreaNJLnXd53fhDsiNhhyMnKLX0LcOI3_-SFOV/s1600-h/908946494_c37f4e8970.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5294645726791733042" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidgGrXJ_1a4IRQEDu4KhL755L04dfau6dtZ8Fw809bI0b2Ad95eOZCuomyBao3Y19EeYh9we_vEkzv49xc8cLJ6QUT0tVh3lzCxB99CTWreaNJLnXd53fhDsiNhhyMnKLX0LcOI3_-SFOV/s320/908946494_c37f4e8970.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />In 1974 the Federal Government of the United States mandated that all states lower their speed limits to no more than 55 miles per hour. At that time, a lot of freeways were posted with limits similar to those found in rural western states today, namely 70-80 miles per hour. While proponents of lower speed limits cite the fact that traffic fatalities dropped after the implementation of the national speed limit, it is likely that the drop in fatalities was a result of several other factors.<br />- The gas crisis meant people couldn’t drive as much. No gas, less drivers, less accidents. That’s logical.<br />- Car technology has continuously evolved creating faster and safer vehicles.<br />-The 55 mile per hour speed limit was ignored on a widespread basis, and some states even aided scofflaws by capping tickets at 65 miles per hour enabling them to travel 75, twenty miles an hour over the speed limit, while only having to fear a 10 mile an hour ticket which had been reduced in price to about $5.<br />The police realized that they had better things to do than harass drivers who were driving a completely reasonable speed. If technology continues to evolve, and cars get safer, faster, and more efficient, why are we dropping speed limits and not raising them?<br />The biggest threat to road safety in the US is untrained, incapable, and intoxicated drivers. Our driver training programs are a joke. There are countless cases of people being taught about driving for a few hours one afternoon, going to the DMV, and passing the test. Drivers training should be an ordeal. It should be intense, difficult, and thorough. Not everyone will pass; as a matter of fact, some people will never be able to get their license, because some people are simply incapable of driving in a way that provides for the safe and rapid conveyance of traffic. Signing and striping should be standardised throughout the US. While it may not be immediately possible, US signage should be standardised to be similar to that of Europe, one of the most advanced, and car saturated locations in the world. Europe’s use of symbols rather than textual legends, and dedication to good traffic engineering and extensive public transit is an excellent example to much of the world. Additional examples are the UAE, Japan, and parts of China. Drivers should be required to recognise all signs and symbols, know the unsigned laws of the road. They could demonstrate their abilities with hours in a driving simulator that automatically records performance data. Emergency driving could be taught on a local racetrack.</div><div> </div><div>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laserstars/">jpctalbot</a> under a creative commons licence.</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-60916131439377084942009-01-19T16:34:00.000-07:002009-01-19T16:35:34.634-07:00Chickens<h2><span style="font-size:100%;">Sorry about my chicken theme</span><br /></h2><h2><br /></h2><h2>Why did the chicken cross the road?</h2> <div class="mb2"> </div> Aristotle: It is the nature of chickens to cross roads.<br /><br />Issac Newton: Chickens at rest tend to stay at rest, chickens in motion tend to cross roads.<br /><br />Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends on your frame of reference.<br /><br />Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.<br /><br />Wolfgang Pauli: There already was a chicken on this side of the road.freakinwackohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10020035226366099744noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-30870193352838104662009-01-07T19:35:00.003-07:002009-01-07T19:38:54.344-07:00On the Practise of Animal Experimentation and VivisectionWhile it may not be the same for everyone, there comes a time in the average person’s life when they are sitting on a bench in a park eating a double cheeseburger when a stray dog walks up with the saddest eyes every seen, staring deep into the person’s soul begging them to find an ounce of compassion. There are also times when we are bitten by mosquitoes, shat on by birds, or climbed on by ants; yet for some reason we do not feel emotion in these cases. What is the difference between the two? Why is it that the dog appears to have emotions while the ant, bee, or fruit fly does not?<br />Animals have been our test dummies for years. We use them to test new drugs, test cosmetics, experiment with new surgical procedures, etc. Many people have no problem with this; while many others, most notably members of organisations such as PETA, oppose such testing. Is our justification of animal testing linked to some concept of sentience and consciousness that separates man from beast? How do we decide what is ethical and what is not. Is it ethical to test a new cancer drug on a rat? How about a new shampoo? If a person opposes testing on canines, yet supports testing on insects and small mammals, from whence do they formulate their position?<br /><br />Additionally: I have included a translated version for those readers who avoid standardised spellings:<br /><br />On th Praktis ov Animl Ixperimentaeshn and Vivisekshn<br /><br />Whiel it mae not bee th saem fr evrywun, thair kumz a tiem in th av'rij peursn'z lief when thae aar siting on a bench in a paark eeting a dubl cheeseburger when a strae dog wauks up with th sadist iez evry seen, stairing deep in t th peursn'z soel beging them t fiend an ouns ov kmpashn. Thair aar aulsoe tiemz when wee aar bitn bie mskeetoez, shat on bie beurdz, aur kliemd on bie ants; yet fr sum reezn wee doo not feel imoeshn in theez kaesiz. Whot iz th difr'ns bitween th too? Wie iz it that th dog apeerz t hav imoeshnz whiel th ant, bee, aur froot flie {duzdoez} not? Animlz hav bin our test dumyz fr yeerz. Wee {uesuez} them t test nue drugz, test kozmetiks, ixperimnt with nue seurjikl preuseejrz, etc. Meny peepl hav noe probl'm with this; whiel meny uthrz, moest noeteubly membrz ov aurg'niezaeshnz such az PETA, apoez such testing. Iz our justifikaeshn ov animl testing linkt t sum konsept ov sentience and konshsnes that {sep'reutssep'raets} man from beest? Hou doo wee disied whot iz ethikl and whot iz not. Iz it ethikl t test a nue kansr drug on a rat? Hou about a nue shampoo? If a peursn apoeziz testing on kaenienz, yet s'paurts testing on insekts and smaul mamlz, from whens doo thae faurmuelaet thair pzishn?Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-14164701772917067112008-12-24T14:03:00.005-07:002008-12-24T14:23:15.994-07:00Morgen kommt der Weinachtsman!Greetings all and happy Christmas Eve. Lettucebrain is all about using your brain, so it may come as a surprise that I am giving some Christmas music recommendations here. But I assure you, any allegations that I am violating the nature of the blog are unfounded. As a matter of fact, music stimulates your rostromedial-prefrontalcortex. I have always thought one of the most interesting phenomena in existance was music. How does it work? Why does some music make us happy and sad? Why does one cultures happy music sound angry or sad to another culture? Why does music work?<br /><br />Anyways, for some good old-fashioned Christmas techno and dance music visit the French radiostation Pulsradio at <a href="http://www.pulsradio.com/index.php?version=classique&op=home">http://www.pulsradio.com/index.php?version=classique&op=home</a> and click on the PULS playlist for the main station (substations are still playing regular techno and trance)<br /><br />And remember: Santa listens to techno, and so should you. (unless you want coal in your stocking)<br /><br />Radio la fraunce. daunce et la trauce! Puls radio. Puls Radio! PULS RADIO! P...P...P...P...P...P...P...PULS!Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-65606421763244406442008-12-22T16:00:00.002-07:002008-12-22T16:04:45.873-07:00Die Genauigkeit von WikipediaMein ganzes Leben als Student sagten die Lehrer immer daβ man sich nie auf die Daten von Wikipedia verlassen solte. Die meisten Enzyklopädien sind von Redakteure geprüft, aber Wikipedia ist von normale Menchen geschrieben und geprüft. Jeder kan Fehler reperieren, und neue Daten hinfügen. Und stadessen als eine Mitglieder Revision wird das Artikel hunderte bis tausende mal jede Woche nachgeprüft. Diejenige die sagen das eine selbstmoderierte Enyzklopedie kein Experten Zeugnis hat wiβen anscheinend nicht das alles das man in ein Wikipedia artikel einschreibt muβ von Fuβnoten abgestimmt werden. Eine oder mehr Forschungspapiere stimmen zu das Wikpedia genau so viel Genauigkeit wie eine editierte Enzyklopädia hat. Vieleicht stimmen die Professoren nie zu, aber Sie können sich drauf verlassen das die Daten sie bei Wikipedia finden verlesslich sind. Wenn Sie immer noch nachprüfen wollen können sie auch die Fuβnote folgen um die Wahrheit den Daten zu bestätigen. Wikipedia ftw!Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-79558660767538760362008-12-22T00:15:00.002-07:002008-12-22T00:38:29.362-07:00Pollo O Huevo? (Chicken or the egg)Ah that most cherished conundrum, the beloved quandry, the marvelous mystery<br /><br />Which came first? The Chicken, or the Egg?<br /><br />"These supporters call attention to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2001). Upon careful examination of the entries and accompanying definitions, one can accurately assert that 'chicken' is found on page 232, while 'egg' is not found until page 398. Therefore, according to this argument, chicken clearly comes before egg."<br />Haha, funny funny...I thought it was<br /><br />But a more serious look on this website reveals the deeper identity of the question:<br />http://chicken-or-egg.3wpages.com/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And since I do believe in intellectual property:<br /><cite style="font-style: normal;" class="Journal" id="CITEREFRandy_Garner2003">Randy Garner (2003). "<a href="http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html" class="external text" title="http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html" rel="nofollow">Which Came First, The Chicken or The Egg? A Foul Metaphor for Teaching</a>". <i>Radical Pedagogy</i>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number" title="International Standard Serial Number">ISSN</a> <a href="http://worldcat.org/issn/1524-6345" class="external text" title="http://worldcat.org/issn/1524-6345" rel="nofollow">1524-6345</a><span class="printonly">. <a href="http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html" class="external free" title="http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html" rel="nofollow">http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html</a></span>.</cite>freakinwackohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10020035226366099744noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-56048446876634941992008-12-21T13:43:00.003-07:002008-12-21T13:57:46.263-07:00The End of the World<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfBNeY34tzRkm67zmiTqJ-QLveSchEZqhy4-X9yh8PU75ylG86Nkgt0n7-W2BxS8uNcxrdj9zeUR-KJjLtfO_In2myzKozTw17MRYrKi5YOyWIwCmO3vP_eclP65fbSh_xSBxtrqdQvs/s1600-h/DSC_2851.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCfBNeY34tzRkm67zmiTqJ-QLveSchEZqhy4-X9yh8PU75ylG86Nkgt0n7-W2BxS8uNcxrdj9zeUR-KJjLtfO_In2myzKozTw17MRYrKi5YOyWIwCmO3vP_eclP65fbSh_xSBxtrqdQvs/s320/DSC_2851.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282348026893662738" border="0" /></a><br />The end times, are they near? We now have the fullness of the Scriptures, the last of the prophets was John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13). The Old Testament was given by the prophets, and the New Testament was given during the time of transition from the old covenant to the new covenant, and was given by the apostles. The apostles are all dead, and so are the prophets. With the end of the days of Christ on Earth, and the reception of the Holy Spirit, we have been in the last days since the day of Pentecost. The Last Days is the time between the time of Christ and the Second Coming. The Last Days will continue until the day of judgement, which will not come until the fullness of His sheep are gathered into the fold (2 Peter 3).<br /><br />History is divided into three sections; the first is Eden, beginning with the 144 hour transition period of creation, the second is the Old Testament, beginning with the transition period of The Fall, and the third is the Last Days, beginning with the transition period of the Time of Christ. There is a fourth period, Eternity, beginning with the transition period of the End Times or Final Judgement. Eden established what harmony with God is, and displayed how things should be. The Old Testament established and displayed who God is and who humans are, the distinction between sin and righteousness, the wrongness of sin, the greatness of God, and the distinction between Israel and non-Israel, clean and unclean, God's chosen and the Sons of Perdition, saved and unsaved; preparing the way for Christ, displaying the need for Christ, and proclaiming the coming of the Messiah. The Last Days are the time of the gathering of God's people, Christ has come, redemption and salvation has come, the sacrifice has been made, the Law has been given, and fulfilled; the time of God's people coming to Him and awaiting the coming of Christ. In the Last Days, Christ has come and established His spiritual kingdom, and with His sacrifice purified unto Himself His bride, the Church. We are now gathering the Elect and awaiting the Marriage Supper of The Lamb. People feel as though the Final Judgement is soon, the End Times are nearly at hand, and the Second Coming is immanent, and so it is, but in light of the duration of eternity, any finite time is well nigh nothing. Even in the Time of Christ, 2000 years ago, they thought that the End Times were soon.<br /><br />It is unknown for certain how old the Universe is. If we are to accept the reasonable calculations performed by the Bishop of Usher, the second period of history is approximately 4000 years. According to historical records, such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, we are now about 2000 years into the third period of history. It is unknown how long the first period was, for the Biblical account of the length of Adam's life says he lived 130 years, and begat Seth (Genesis 5:3), but the term for "lived" means "could have died", so therefore is not the number of breathing years, but the number of breathing years while mortal, and so the clock starts with the fall, and the time in Eden before the fall is unknown. We assume it was a brief time, and logically it would seem so; the purpose of Eden, and the Biblical account of the events in Eden, do not necessitate very much time.<br /><br />Eden was a preparation for Old Testament times, and Old Testament times was a preparation for the Last Days. The Last Days is the most important period of history, for all the rest is preparing for the Last Days, when God's Church is on the Earth, gathering the harvest, preaching the gospel, and redemption is available, with the Messiah come and His prophesy fulfilled. Before the Time of Christ, history was preparing for Christ. History has been making ready for the Last Days. Although we seem to think that the Last Days should be a short time, what if it is actually the longest time in history? The other times are periods of transition or preparing, the Last Days is it. Although it is popular to think that the Last Days will end soon, what if they last for another 10,000 years? That would make the Last Days a period of 12,000 years, three times as long as its preparation era. If the Second Coming is not going to occur until the fullness of the sheep are gathered, and the first two periods of history are preparation for the Last Days, and the Last Days is the time of the gathering, wouldn't such a time be the longest, with the most significant time of history being the gathering of the sheep? Why must the Last Days be a short time? Why not the longest period of history?Lynn Belvederehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16014980747238199502noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382354455141747426.post-64034926869296656752008-12-20T16:57:00.007-07:002008-12-20T17:23:25.450-07:00On Economic Growth<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4SVVmIaoeGtVMGZlN65cO2ASVOFy5gVvACMYfKF3oSJpgis7-9_Mznt_FHkBQu2uwa8dCXz6IO8nCGX5glBsZJj2aJQPLMiRy-GZNKp6lPflbTcgH1OPoo4UJmx_jwv81yzZfV8Sj2Skt/s1600-h/greed.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282031846379581442" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 246px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4SVVmIaoeGtVMGZlN65cO2ASVOFy5gVvACMYfKF3oSJpgis7-9_Mznt_FHkBQu2uwa8dCXz6IO8nCGX5glBsZJj2aJQPLMiRy-GZNKp6lPflbTcgH1OPoo4UJmx_jwv81yzZfV8Sj2Skt/s320/greed.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>According to the almighty Wikipedia, economic growth is “the increase in the amount of goods and services produced by an economy over time.” This is the reason why governments around the world feel the compelling, yet horribly misguided, need to bailout failing industries. After all, as long as we sell more stuff, even if it is worthless crap, our economy is growing, or is it?<br />Let’s say I have my own country, and for some stupid unknown reason I made it similar to most of the countries around the world today except that I am supreme overlord and everyone must obey me. One day I wake up in the morning and decide that I want to “grow my economy.” Immediately, I send out an order to all the factories and plants in my evil corporatocracy to double or even triple production. After a week the market is saturated and will not accept any more shipments of my crappy products and my economy starts to stagnate. As a diligent follower of flawed economic theories, I realise that I must not be producing enough garbage, and give the order to use my country’s petroleum deposits to create thousands of crappy plastic toys. For close to a year I attempt to turn my economy around, but the market is just too saturated, and other countries have begun to make a higher quality product than ours. My countries economy collapses, all the capital flows out of the country, I exhausted all my natural resources, and everyone starves to death and dies.<br />Growth is not making more junk. The corporations use advertising to convince us all to buy crap we don’t want or need, and call it economic growth. They have even gone so far as to adapt their brand names to become verbs in our languages. In order to produce this worthless garbage, we spend hours working in the economy, probably for minimum wage, so that we can produce junk that the corpocapitalistic swine will sell back to us at costs way above the actual resource cost.<br />Just because we are not making more and more junk, and exporting more and more worthless crap, does not mean we don’t have a good economy. A good economy is an economy that creates products people need: products that don’t have to be advertised as subliminal messaging for 0.1 seconds every ten frames in a movie. Refrigerators are a brilliant invention; advertising is hardly needed in order to sell every family a refrigerator, because the product arises from a felt need, not a rancid lust for economic “growth.” By artificially growing our economy, and depleting all our resources, we are making our quality of life worse, not better. The less crap our economy produces, the less time we need to spend at work slaving away for our corporate masters. I don’t care about Tickle Me Elmo,” “Digimon cards,” and all the other low priced, low quality, junk out there. That’s why we have imaginations. No one needs 5 different game systems all to themselves. Isn’t it good enough to share them between 20 people? Everyone wants their own of everything, despite the fact that these items often sit idle more than they are used! If we tune out the advertising and reign in this rampant corporatism that pervades our society we can actually improve our quality of life. The things we truly need will abound, no one will go hungry, and we will spend half as much time working to put bread on the table, and twice as much time inventing, reading, exercising, socialising, and doing things for our own pleasure or the unselfish benefit of others. I believe that it is possible for us to enjoy a quality of life twice what we have today despite working only 20 hours a week. [Stop reading now if you are easily offended by vulgar language] In conclusion fμ©К corperate capitalism, and fμ©К the selfish greedy bastards who know that the only economy they are growing is the wallet in their own pocket while everyone else suffers in order to make it possible.<br /><br />An additional note: someone is bound to make some sort of comment about how people will never produce anything or work hard without selfish interest. Not so! Look at the Creative Commons community online, look at this blog, look at the people who edit Wikipedia. Are any of them receiving something for their work? At most they are receiving a little bit of ad revenue. How about people volunteering at soup kitchens, homeless shelters. You only entertain the notion that the current state of things is good because one day you hope to be the evil master lording over his economic slaves mercilessly. I hate to spoil it for you, but your chances are pretty low. More than likely you are going to end up working an average job getting paid way less than your labour is worth so the CEO can purchase his fifth Bently.</div><div> </div><div>IMAGE CREDIT: BJHokanson under an Attribution NonCommercial Share Alike 2.0 Generic Licence</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11467025984194022206noreply@blogger.com3